Discrimination case against golf club unsuccessful
A WOMAN golfer who took a discrimination action against Woodenbridge Golf Club has had her claim rejected by the Workplace Relations Commission.
Mary Byrne took the case after she was refused entry to a male-only competition at the club on May 24, 2017 while on a mini-break in the area.
While adjudication officer James Kelly found that the complainant established a direct case of discrimination against the club, he also found that Woodenbridge Golf Club availed of a specific defence set out in the Equal Status Act.
Ms Byrne outlined that she had wanted to play golf at the club on a day when a ‘male-only open day’ was taking place.
She claimed that there was no justified reason for the club to refuse her to play and said that it should have ran a parallel competition for women at the same time. It was on this basis that she claimed that she was discriminated against by the respondent on gender grounds.
Woodenbridge Golf Club said that at that point in time, it was holding a men’s event but that Ms Byrne was invited to use the golf course later on in the day when the competition was over. It said that is also runs women-only competitions where men would have to wait to use the golf course until after such competitions are finished.
Ms Byrne’s view was that there was no justifiable reason other than ‘blatant misogyny’ as to why there are men-only open days in this day and age.
She said that many golf clubs have now moved into the 21st century but she felt that the respondent has not.
The Workplace Relations Commission report outlined that Woodenbridge Golf Club indicated that its open days are organised on a simple supply and demand basis.
‘When the demand for a particular competition is higher than all others it is an economic reality that it supplies that service more often. The respondent said that the club would have a 3:1 ratio of men to women membership, which is on par with the national average approximately,’ the report stated.
The club said its ability to provide and support gender-specific open competitions remains an important feature for the fair running of the sport.
The club said that the incident in question centred round ‘convenience, or inconvenience as it were, as opposed to discrimination’.
It said that neither Ms Byrne nor her husband were precluded from playing the course before or after the open day competition, albeit for the standard green fee. The club said that it is also worth bearing in mind that had Ms Byrne sought to play golf the day before, on a day when a ‘ladies-only open competition’ had been scheduled, her husband would have been refused entry for the period that competition was running.
The golf club said that it is certainly not a club that could, in any manner, be considered as a discriminating club.
In its defence, it said that it ‘goes to great lengths and strides to ensure that the services it provides to the public, as well as its members, are fair, equitable and accommodative to both genders in as far as possible’.
The open days it provides are vital, it said, for the continued success of the club and generate much needed revenue for the club to ensure it survives in a time that has become very challenging for clubs.
It said that it is extremely unfortunate and disappointing that the complainant felt discriminated against and this was not its intention and goes against all efforts to ensure its continued compliance with the Equal Status Acts.