This article is from page 3 of the 2007-03-27 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 3 JPG
THE Equality Tribunal has ordered a Traveller couple to pay €400 ex- penses, after they failed in an equal status claim against Clare County Council.
Last week, the Equality Tribunal dismissed five claims made against the council under Equal Status legis- lation, stating that the complainants had not established a prima facie case of discrimination.
The couple who were ordered to pay the €400 expenses claimed that
the council discriminated against them and that they were harassed, contrary to the Equal Status Act.
The Equality Tribunal also dis- missed claims brought by four other couples who are members of the Traveller community.
Summarising the case against the first couple, the inspector said that every opportunity had been afforded by the Tribunal to the complainants to have their case heard.
“IT am of the view that the com- plainants wilfully abused the oppor- tunities provided.
“T am concerned that the council turned up with their legal representa- tives on all occasions when the case was listed, thereby incurring legal costs and expenses.
“IT am also conscious that there is a cost to the public, in that the Tri- bunal’s time has been wasted on a number of occasions and unneces- sary costs have been incurred, all resulting from the complainants’ be- haviour and non-appearance,” stated the report. On the couple’s interac- tion with the tribunal, the inspec- tor accepted that their baby was in
hospital during one of the scheduled hearings on October 16, 2006 and that the mother could not attend.
“However, I have also noted that the baby was discharged from hospi- tal on October 18 and was collected by the parents on October 19.
The father did not attend the hear- ing as directed on October 20 when the baby was out of hospital.
“He left a hearing without a valid reason during the course of cross examination, resulting in the hear- ing being adjourned to the following morning, when he could only attend
for a short period and his wife did not attend. They were required by me to attend the Tribunal on September 22, 2006. The wife did not attend and the husband left after a short time, despite having walked out on the Tr1- bunal the previous day.
“Both complainants were notified to attend on January 15, 2007 and they failed to appear and again failed to turn up the following day when their case was scheduled for hearing. No valid explanation was provided for their non-attendance’’, added the report.