The Workplace Relations Commission has dismissed a claim that Green Party councillor Hazel Chu discriminated against a member of a non-faith group on religious grounds during her term of office as Lord Mayor of Dublin.
John Hamill, a representative of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and atheism campaigner, claimed Ms Chu had breached the Equal Status Act by treating a non-religious representative body less favourably than others with a religious belief over the availability of the Lord Mayor’s garden to host events.
Mr Hamill complained to the WRC that Ms Chu as Lord Mayor had allocated public resources to faith-based groups in late 2020 at a time when he was refused access to similar facilities on behalf of the Dublin City Inter-Non-Faith Forum, (DCINFF) despite many written requests.
He outlined how he became aware in December 2020 that Ms Chu had arranged for a series of different religious groups to hold services known as Rewind 2020 in the Lord Mayor’s Garden over a period of seven days to mark celebrations they had missed during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Mr Hamill claimed correspondence in which he sought similar access for non-religious groups, which included an offer of a donation to a charity nominated by Ms Chu, was ignored while the Lord Mayor’s office had responded immediately to a request from the Dublin City Interfaith Forum.
'External parties'
The WRC heard Ms Chu wrote to the complainant in May 2021 indicating that she would not be facilitating his request as no requests for use of the Lord Mayor’s Garden from “external parties” were being considered at the time.
However, Mr Hamill claimed that she contacted the Dublin City Volunteer Centre two days later to invite them to use the same facility.
He also accused the Lord Mayor’s office of having a long-standing track record of offering public funds to faith groups, while refusing similar support to non-faith groups.
Lawyers for Dublin City Council on behalf of Ms Chu told the WRC that there was no response to the initial DCINFF request as it was sent in the busy run-up period to Christmas 2020.
Covid restrictions
They claimed it would not have been possible to deal with the request given the time of year, while no further events were planned for 2021 due to the Covid-19 restrictions.
They called for Mr Hamill’s complaint to be dismissed for being “frivolous and misconceived” as the WRC had already made a similar finding in a case relating to his beliefs with regard to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Counsel for the council, Claire Bruton BL, claimed the circumstances in which the DCINFF became operative were also questionable, while the organisation’s charter lacked cogency or any meaning.
There was “a degree of artificiality” to the DCINFF whose existence seemed to revolve almost entirely around the WRC complaint and appeared to be essentially “a political group”, Ms Bruton observed.
The WRC heard the DCINFF comprised the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Alliance of Former Muslims and the Church of Naturalism.
Ms Bruton claimed the case was effectively “an abuse of process” as the DCINFF was a body which could not be a party to a case relating to an alleged breach of the Equal Status Act.
She also pointed out that informal events in the Lord Mayor’s Garden that were organised at the discretion of the Lord Mayor of the day do not constitute a “service” as defined under the legislation.
She claimed it would be utterly unworkable and a serious interference with the personal rights of any Lord Mayor if every meeting or interaction that took place in the Lord Mayor’s residence was subject to review under the Equal Status Act.
In addition, Ms Bruton stated it was clearly not the intention of the Oireachtas in framing the legislation to make every decision of elected representatives about whom they meet subject to scrutiny by the WRC.
In his ruling, WRC adjudication officer, Jim Dolan, said the DCINFF was not directly comparable to the Dublin City Interfaith Forum as one was an active organisation which had existed for over a decade.
Mr Dolan said it was obvious that redress was being sought for the DCINFF rather than Mr Hamill.
Dismissing the complaint as “not well founded.”, Mr Dolan said he found it hard to disagree with the legal points raised by the council.
