A man who has lodged over half a dozen complaints alleging he was discriminated against for not wearing a face mask during the pandemic says he made a recording every time stepped inside a restaurant or other business premises for the last two years.
In evidence to the Workplace Relations Commission on Monday, he denied any knowledge of a protest by opponents of Covid-19 public health measures on the day he claims he was discriminated against by a Waterford city restaurant last year.
George Breban, with an address at Old Mill, Castle Street, Dunmanway, Co Cork, complained under the Equal Status Act against Deli-Wine John Street Limited, trading as Burzza at 53 John Street, Waterford city.
He alleged the restaurant discriminated against him on the grounds of disability on Saturday August 28th, 2021, when he said he was asked to show a medical cert to back up his assertion that he was exempt from wearing a face mask.
‘Everything costs more now.’ Meet the Irish Times voter panel for General Election 2024
‘You can see the difference. Definitely’: How the Finnish approach to preschool childcare is paying dividends in Cork
Ireland’s new dating scene: Finding love the old-fashioned way
Mark Moriarty: It’s time for comfort food – beef stroganoff and shepherd’s pie
No representative of the restaurant appeared to defend the claim at a remote adjudication hearing on Monday morning, at which Mr Breban gave evidence under secular affirmation.
He said on the date in question, he and three friends took a terrace table at the restaurant and ordered burgers before he went inside alone to wash his hands.
“I asked the barman where’s the toilet. He asked if I had a mask. I said no, I’m exempt,” Mr Breban said.
Then he saw a door and went towards it, he said, but was “literally chased”, he said, by the owner of the restaurant, who asked him again if he had a mask, to which he again responded that he was “exempt”, he told the hearing.
He said the owner asked him to show proof of the medical exemption he was claiming.
“So I said no,” he said.
He said the staff member’s response was: “Under the restaurant’s policy you have to wear a mask.”
“That was it, I walked outside, I told the guys I couldn’t walk inside without a mask so I can’t wash,” he said, adding that the group immediately left.
Adjudicating officer Eve O’Carroll noted that a medical certificate dated December 11th, 2020 had been submitted in evidence and Mr Breban said he had the same letter on his person on the day in question.
“Can I ask you why wouldn’t you show it to the restaurant owner,” Ms O’Carroll asked.
“At the moment she asked me half the people in the restaurant had their heads turned around. I wasn’t going to read out medical details to the room,” Mr Breban said.
He said he did have the letter with him but that he was not prepared to let the restaurant owner see it.
“I felt it’s not fair, it’s not equitable, to place a higher burden of proof on me after I told them I am exempt,” Mr Breban later added.
He confirmed to the adjudicating officer that he had recorded the conversation from “start to finish” and Ms O’Connell put it to him that he was “anticipating” a difficulty.
“For the last two years I did not enter any business without turning on audio recording,” he said.
He said he wasn’t sure how many other claims of a similar nature he had lodged against businesses but guessed it was “six or seven”.
“Do you not think it would have been more preferable to putting yourself and everybody else through all this that you would just show them proof of your exemption?” Ms O’Connell asked.
“No. I would have not ever disclosed any medical data to someone who’s not a medical practitioner,” he said.
Ms O’Connell said: “Documentation has been submitted by the respondent… [it] implies that you are, the colloquial term is, an ‘anti-masker’ and that you attended marches in Waterford. What do you say about that?”
He said: “This was the day of anti-mask march in Waterford city but, as I said, I don’t know anything about an anti-mask march in Waterford that day.”
“That was nothing to do with you?”
“No,” he replied.
The matter has been adjourned pending a decision.
