Latest news with #FreeLegalAdviceCentres
Irish Examiner
3 days ago
- Business
- Irish Examiner
Beauty salon ordered to pay €1,500 to Traveller family
A beauty salon has been ordered to pay €1,500 in compensation to a Traveller family in a discrimination case before the Workplace Relations Commission. When a mother and two daughters went to the salon for a 'birthday treat' for one of them, the WRC heard they were asked to pay in advance for their treatments when other customers didn't have to, were shouted at by the manager of the salon, and left to queue for longer than non-Traveller customers. 'We did not take these cases for money, we wanted to challenge the unfair way we were treated,' the mother said. 'As a mother, I want my girls to know that people cannot and should not treat them badly because they come from the Traveller community.' In a summary of the case, the WRC said that the beauty salon against which the allegations had been made did not have any representatives at the hearing. A WRC inspector said they had been notified in advance and did not provide any reason or explanation for not attending. As part of the hearing, it was alleged that when the mother was called up to the desk and shown the full amount to pay, the manager/owner became 'infuriated' when asked for an itemised breakdown of the costs. It was alleged the manager/owner 'hit the counter with her two hands saying something to the effect 'do you want it for free' and a further 'are you trying to rob me', the inspector said. Furthermore, it was alleged that another hairdresser told the mother that the reason for this behaviour was a group of girls who had not paid for treatments the previous week were 'also Travellers'. As minors were involved in the case, all parties were anonymised. Each of them were awarded €500. The trio were represented by Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC) at the WRC hearing. Its chief executive Eilis Barry said that the family showed 'great bravery and resilience in taking these complaints'. 'These decisions are a stark reminder of the barriers and discrimination which Travellers constantly face in accessing services that the general population take for granted,' she said. Ms Barry added that currently there is no legal aid for those who takes to the WRC which makes it impossible for many to challenge discrimination and access compensation for its effects.
RTÉ News
3 days ago
- Business
- RTÉ News
Beauty salon discriminated against Travellers, WRC rules
A beauty salon has been ordered to pay a Traveller woman and her daughters €500 each in compensation for discrimination after insisting they pay cash up front for their beauty treatments. The Workplace Relations Commission has upheld complaints under the Equal Status Act 2000 by the woman and her two daughters against the unidentified beauty salon in a set of decisions published today. In her evidence to the tribunal, Ms A said she and her daughters went to the salon as a "birthday treat" for one of the girls, and on arrival was informed by a hairdresser that the business would "only accept cash". Upon inquiring about the full cost, the owner called Ms A to the counter and showed her a sum on a calculator, the complainant said. She said that she asked for an itemised breakdown of the figure, upon which the owner became "infuriated". Ms A said the owner struck the counter with two hands and said "something to the effect" of: "Do you want it for free? Are you trying to rob me?" The complainant added that the owner also threatened to call the police, and continued to be "rude and aggressive" to the point that one of her daughters became upset and suggested that they leave. Ms A said it was made clear she would have to pay up front for all the procedures, and that one of the hairdressers also suggested she "run across the road to the ATM". She said that before she went out, the hairdresser told her the reason the owner had behaved as she had was because a group of girls had been in the week before and failed to pay for procedures. The hairdresser said this group were "also Travellers", the complainant said in her evidence. Ms A said that having paid up front as requested, other customers who had been in line behind her and her family were served ahead of her. It was "so obvious" that this was happening, the complainant said, that another customer, a member of the settled community, noticed one of her daughters was "visibly upset" and offered to let the girl go ahead of her. "Other customers who were not members of the Traveller community were not asked to pay for their treatments up front," the complainant told the hearing, adding that she knew because she had asked two other customers and they had confirmed this to her. Sinead Lucey, managing solicitor at the Free Legal Advice Centres (FLAC), submitted that the insistence on cash up front, the fact that Ms A was "shouted at", and that Ms A and her daughters were left to queue longer all amounted to less favourable treatment of her clients as members of the Travelling community. Adjudication officer Orla Jones noted the failure of the business's management to attend a hearing on the case which was held in Dublin on 24 February this year. In her decision, Ms Jones wrote that she was satisfied Ms A and her daughters were subjected to less favourite treatment while being served at the salon on the grounds of their membership of the Traveller Community. She upheld the three complaints, awarding Ms A, Ms M and Ms K compensation of €500 each, totalling €1,500. Ms Jones anonymised all three of her decisions on the cases, also redacting the name of the business, in order to protect identities of the two underage complainants. In a press statement circulated today by FLAC, Ms A welcomed the WRC decision and offered thanks to the the non-profit legal support body, without which she said she could not have pursued the matter. Ms A said: "We did not take these cases for money… As a mother, I want my girls to know that people cannot and should not treat them badly because they come from the Traveller community." Eilis Barry, FLAC Chief Executive, said: "The family showed great bravery and resilience in taking these complaints. Unfortunately, there is no legal aid for victims of discrimination who take cases to the WRC. This means it is impossible for many people to challenge discrimination and to access compensation for its effects." Ms Barry called for the removal of the "blanket ban on legal aid for cases heard by tribunals like the WRC" and more support for legal services for the Travelling Community and "other groups with high levels of legal need".
Irish Times
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Concern over law which would see separated parents lose widow's pension rights
A bereaved TD has described her shock at planned changes to the widow's pension which, she said, would have left her and her daughter in financial hardship had they been in place when her former husband died. People Before Profit's Ruth Coppinger was teaching part-time when her daughter's father died last year. 'We were married for 14 years and had a maintenance agreement written into our separation agreement. I was reliant on that,' said Ms Coppinger. When her former husband died suddenly,Ms Coppinger worried about their financial security without his support. READ MORE Divorced or legally separated co-parents have been entitled to the widow's, or widower's, pension for almost 30 years – since the 1995 divorce referendum. The weekly rate is up to €249.50 for those aged under 66 and €289.30 for those aged 66 and older, with increases of €50 for each dependent child under 12 and €62 for each child aged 12 and older. 'It was such a relief, financially and mentally, to know I would get the widow's pension, that I would have that for my daughter,' Ms Coppinger said. Planned changes, however, would see parents in her situation excluded from entitlement to the pension. The Bereaved Partner's Pension Bill , expected to complete its passage through the Dáil on Wednesday, will remove entitlement to the pension from bereaved co-parents with the loss of hundreds of euro a week for them and their children, according to one legal charity. The Free Legal Advice Centres (Flac) is to brief Oireachtas members on its concerns about the Bill on Tuesday. The new law is to give effect to last year's Supreme Court judgment in the O'Meara case which ruled the exclusion of John O'Meara, a bereaved, unmarried father of three, from entitlement to the widower's contributory pension scheme was unconstitutional. It found the rules around access to the pension breached the guarantee of equality in the Constitution by refusing it to a bereaved unmarried parent with exactly the same obligations to their children as a bereaved married parent. While the new law extends entitlement to bereaved cohabiting parents, it stipulates they must be in a committed, intimate relationship and living together at the time of bereavement. It removes the entitlement of those who married the deceased parent of their children, but are divorced or separated from them when they die. The new law will not affect current recipients. The existing scenario, in which divorced or legally separated co-parents are entitled to the pension, has been an 'important protection' against poverty for children where the death of a parent meant the loss of maintenance, Flac has said. Karen Kiernan, chief executive of the support charity One Family, said a 'very small number' of divorced or separated people claim a survivor's pension. 'We see no basis for removing their entitlement,' she said. 'It is highly concerning that the potential financial impact ... on this group does not seem to have been considered by the Department in what is otherwise a very positive piece of legislation.' Damien Peelo, chief executive of lone-parent advocacy organisation Treoir, said the bill risked 'replacing one inequality with another' by excluding divorced or separated parents. 'Grieving children deserve equal treatment, regardless of their parents' relationship status,' he said. Ms Coppinger said the law would 'plunge households into poverty' and could see some children facing 'homelessness on top of grief' if their surviving parent could not pay their rent or mortgage. A Department of Social Protection spokesman said the O'Meara judgment had raised 'a range of complex matters. 'The Bill has been developed to ensure that the principle of equality in the treatment of potential beneficiaries is upheld both in relation to eligibility for the payment and the rules on the loss of entitlement when a relationship ends,' he said. 'The representation that this amounts to discrimination against single parents is incorrect.'
