A tribunal has ruled that a Portuguese man suffered racial discrimination last year when polling staff in Ballybane “denied him the right to exercise his franchise” by refusing to give him a ballot for the local elections.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has upheld a complaint of discrimination on the grounds of race brought under the Equal Status Act 2000 against the returning officer for Co Galway by Carlos Manuel Garcia da Silva.
The tribunal made no award for financial redress and instead ordered extra training for polling station staff after hearing that both Mr da Silva and his wife were told they didn’t have the right to elect a local councillor, despite living in Ireland for decades.
Mr da Silva told a hearing in October that he went out to vote at his local polling station in Ballybane, Co Galway on 7 June 2024 after “a long day at work”.
He said he was a Portuguese national resident in Ireland for some 30 years.
He told the tribunal he gave his driver’s licence to the officials issuing the ballot papers for the local and European elections proceeding that day.
Upon finding his name in the list, one of the officials, a woman, said: “There’s an ‘E’ here,” Mr da Silva said.
The other official present, a man, told him he was “only entitled to vote in the European elections”, the complainant said.
Mr da Silva said he was “very surprised” because he was “almost 100% certain he was entitled to vote” in both polls.
He told the WRC he “hesitated” on the basis that “some new legislation” might have been passed modifying his voting rights and that it “never crossed his mind” that the polling station staff might be wrong.
He said he went and cast his European election vote – adding that he felt “embarrassed”, as if he had done something wrong.
At 8pm that evening, the tribunal heard, Mr da Silva’s wife Maria de Almeida Silva arrived home, having gone to the same polling station to vote. She told the commission she was “angry and upset” because she too had been told that she was not entitled to vote in the locals by a poll clerk.
Her evidence was that after challenging the poll clerk on that decision, the matter was referred to the presiding officer, who confirmed she had the right to vote in both elections, and she proceeded to do so.
Ms de Almeida Silva had suggested her husband go out again to cast his vote before polls closed at 10pm. The complainant decided not to, as he had been at work since 6am and was due back at the same time the following morning and didn’t want to make a second trip, the tribunal heard.
Husband and wife both pursued complaints under the equality legislation, arguing that they had been treated “less favourably” compared to an Irish person going out to cast their vote.
David Higgins of Berwick Solicitors appeared for the respondent and said the returning officer accepted Mr da Silva’s evidence.
Counsel said the poll clerk made a “very unfortunate error” in Mr da Silva’s case, which was not corrected by the presiding officer.
The returning officer was “very sorry that the complainant wasn’t allowed to vote”, he added.
Adjudicator Catherine Byrne wrote in her decision: “On the face of it, what occurred may seem like a minor issue, but, regardless of whether there was an intention to treat the complainant less fairly than an Irish person, the effect of the mistake is that he was so treated.”
“A mistake on the day of voting has an effect on the democratic process and, in the complainant’s case, the mistake denied him the right to exercise his franchise,” she wrote.
Ms Byrne found that Mr da Silva would have got his ballot if he was Irish and concluded he was “was discriminated against on the ground of his nationality”.
She upheld Mr da Silva’s complaint, but rejected a claim on the same grounds by his wife, heard jointly, on the basis that Ms de Almeida Silva was able to exercise her franchise.
Compensation was “not sufficient to remedy the nature of the discrimination”, she wrote. She made no order for financial redress to Mr da Silva, but issued a series of compliance directions arising from the couple’s complaints.
In Mr da Silva’s case, Ms Byrne ordered that signs be put at the polling station giving the name and contact number of the person in charge to reduce the risk of someone entitled to vote being “prevented from doing so”.
In her ruling on Ms de Almeida Silva’s complaint Ms Byrne reiterated her direction about signage and also ordered the returning officer to arrange specific training for polling clerks and presiding officers on voter rights arising from citizenship and residency.
