This article is from page 60 of the 2007-05-08 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 60 JPG
THE Equality Tribunal has dis- missed a further 16 cases brought by Travellers under the Equal Status Act against Clare County Council.
The cases were dismissed after the Travellers failed to turn up at the hearing.
A previous ruling to dismiss four cases by Travellers has been ap- pealed to the Circuit Court and these have yet to be heard. The latest deci- sions are also likely to be appealed.
The dispute concerns claims by the
Travellers that they were discrimi- nated against by named officials of Clare County Council and the coun- cil itself on the Traveller Community eround. They also allege that they were harassed contrary to section 1] of the Equal Status Act.
A council spokesman said, “These cases involve a huge amount of ad- ministrative work which could be better used in a number of ways.
The council would still incur legal costs in spite of the Travellers failing to turn up.
He pointed out that each equality
tribunal sittings demand the attend- ance of several council officials.
In a sample decision, the Equality Tribunal officer stated, “The com- plainants’ representative was noti- fied orally by me on October 20, 2006 that I was arranging a callover on December 4, 2006 of all the cases referred against the respondents, in- cluding the cases of the complainants oaKeabee
‘The representative applied for an adjournment of the matters on the grounds that she was out of the coun- try on holidays and would be unable
to notify the complainants of the callover.
“The adjournment was granted and the parties were notified that the callover would take place on January 15, 2007.
“Tt should be noted that during the course of other hearings of cases against Clare County Council listed for the week of 16 to 20 October 2006, the complainants’ representa- tive submitted a letter on behalf of all of the complainant family groups, including the complainants in this case, requesting that I withdraw from
hearing the cases.
““T informed her that I would not be acceding to the request. At the com- mencement of the callover on January 15, 2007, the complainants’ represent- ative made a further application for an adjournment and also stated that she wished to judicially review my deci- sions 1N previous cases.
“On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the complainants have not established a prima facie case of dis- crimination and accordingly their cases cannot succeed,’ the decision concluded.