Dadyal v A.V.S Australian Venue Security Services Pty Ltd

[2008] NSWADT 110

CITATION:	Dadyal v A.V.S Australian Venue Security Services Pty Ltd [2008] NSWADT 110
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Baljeet Singh Dadyal RESPONDENT A.V.S Australian Venue Security Services Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER:	071038
HEARING DATES:	16 October 2007
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	16 October 2007
DATE OF DECISION:	15 April 2008
BEFORE:	Conley J - Judicial Member; Hayes E - Non Judicial Member; O'Sullivan M - Non Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Race Discrimination - services
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti-discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED:	N/A
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT No appearance
ORDERS:	1. The application be dismissed 2. No order as to costs.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Background

1 This was a complaint that the Applicant, who is a Sikh, was discriminated on the grounds of race, by the Respondent in the provision of services.

2 The basis of the complaint made to the Anti-Discrimination Board (the ADB) is that on Monday 18 July 2005 at approximately 7:15pm the Applicant and a friend went into the Greenacre Hotel bar (the Hotel) and asked for a drink. The Applicant who is a Sikh, was wearing a turban. A person who identified himself as Kevin, the Hotel manager, approached the Applicant and told him that it was a hotel rule that he would not be served unless he removed his headwear. The Applicant declined to do so. The Applicant was then refused service. The Manager then called over a security guard and asked to leave.

3 The Applicant successfully resolved the dispute with the Hotel. This was a complaint against the security provider at the Hotel.

The Applicant’s Evidence

4 The Applicant said that he had seen the security guard and the Manager talking together. The security guard told the Applicant that the manager did not want him in the hotel and the reason given was that, “You are wearing a funny hat”. The security guard declined to show his security identity when asked by the Applicant for his name and identification.

5 The Applicant gave evidence that he had a discussion with the Manager at the Hotel and told the Manager that he was discriminating against him. The Manager responded by stating that it was the Rules, Regulations and Policy of the Hotel group that hats could not be worn in the Hotel.

6 The Applicant told the Tribunal that he was given the Respondent’s name by the Hotel Manager. The Applicant could not recall the name of the Hotel Manager, nor the name of the Director of the company, which owned the Hotel.

7 There was no evidence before the Tribunal in respect of the identity of the “security guard”, either his name or who he was employed by.

8 There was no evidence, documentary or otherwise, before the Tribunal in respect of the relationship between the Respondent and the Greenacre Hotel. The Applicant stated that he is unaware if the Respondent company is still trading.

9 In relation to the Respondent there was no response filed in the Anti-Discrimination Board. The Respondent also did not file a Defence in these proceedings.

10 The Applicant bears the onus of proving the claim on the civil standard of proof, that is the balance of probabilities. Unfortunately the Applicant was unable to provide the Tribunal with necessary relevant evidence. There is no evidence before the Tribunal in respect of the identity of the “security guard”, either his name or who he was employed by. There is also no evidence of the relationship between the Greenacre Hotel and the Respondent. The Applicant could have obtained this evidence either in the form of a written statement from an employee of the Hotel or other some other documentary evidence from the Hotel, however failed to do so.

11 As the Applicant has failed to establish that the Respondent was involved in the incident on the 18 July 2005 the claim must fail. For this reason the Tribunal has not made any findings in relation to the merits of the more substantive matters in relation to the complaint.

Orders

1. The application be dismissed

2. No order as to costs.