Aspiring monk who accused monastery of ‘anti-Traveller prejudice’ loses claim at Workplace Relations Commission

1 November 2024

A tribunal has said it has no authority to rule on a claim that an aspiring monk was denied a place in a monastery because he mentioned that his father was a Traveller.

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found it had did not have jurisdiction to consider a complaint by John Malone under the Equal Status Act 2000 directed against the prior of Silverstream Priory in Co Meath.

Lawyers acting for the religious community denied Mr Malone’s allegation that an offer had been withdrawn, submitting that no such invitation had ever been made.

Mr Malone told the tribunal that becoming a monk had been an aspiration of his since childhood – but that he had been prevented from exploring it as a vocation because of ageism and “anti-Traveller prejudice”.

The tribunal heard the Benedictine monastery required new entrants to be aged between 18 and 35, and Mr Malone was aged 53 when he made inquiries about joining in 2022.

Mr Malone, however, said the master of novices at the monastery had invited him to stay at the monastery’s guest house for 10 days in July 2022, offered him a place in the monastery and told him would be able to stay longer.

Mr Malone said the master also invited him to attend a retreat at the end of the month in Co Waterford so that he could meet the head monk, or prior, of Silverstream.

The complainant said that upon meeting the prior and mentioning his Traveller heritage to him, there was a change in attitude from the senior monk. Mr Malone said the prior said “became cool” and “made no effort to engage with [him] thereafter”.

In an internal email exhibited to the WRC by Mr Malone, the prior wrote: “I have some doubts about John. I will tell you when I get back.”

Mr Malone said there was no word from the monks until he emailed again on August 16th – the master of novices telling him by reply that he had spoken too little to the prior at the retreat for “serious discernment”.

“In fact, based on his observations of your conduct during the retreat Father Prior judged that it would be not advisable for you to enter our community,” the master wrote.

“Bearing in mind that as I mentioned several times, it would, in any case, be very exceptional for us to accept a candidate at your age, and having heard Father Prior’s observations, I am in agreement with his judgment,” the master added.

Mr Malone said he would appeal to the bishop and legal correspondence followed until Mr Malone lodged a WRC complaint in February 2023.

Benedict O’Floinn SC, instructed by solicitor Michelle Murphy James H Murphy & Son, submitted that the prior had no memory of Mr Malone discussing his father – but said membership of the Travelling community would not “present a bar to admission”.

Mr O’Floinn said the allegation that the prior “changed his mind” was “unsubstantiated” and “not corroborated”.

Counsel submitted that the reasons for not inviting Mr Malone to join the community were the prior’s “observations about the complainant’s conduct during the retreat”, his failure to engage with the prior, and “in light of his age”.

The reasons were “entirely unconnected” to membership of the Travelling community, Mr O’Floinn submitted.

WRC adjudicator Emile Daly wrote that the process of joining a religious community “is not a provision of a service”.

“Admission to live in a religious community is a mutually agreed arrangement. There can be no enforcement by one party. Both parties need to desire it,” she wrote.

Ms Daly said she had no jurisdiction to investigate the substance of the complaint and dismissed it as “not well founded”.

If you would like an assessment of a claim, you can use the online form available here without obligation or alternatively you can use the automatic claim calculator.

Follow us for the latest updates & news

Recent News

Northern Ireland exam board boss wins £100,000 settlement

Northern Ireland’s Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) has paid a substantial settlement to its former interim chief executive who complained of sex, race and age discrimination and constructive dismissal. The sum paid to Margaret Farragher,...

Catriona Crumlish v Health Service Executive – Court of Appeal

On Oct. 15th, The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision against Caitriona Crumlish in her claim against Letterkenny University hospital. The plaintiff alleged that there was a failure to detect and diagnose breast cancer in May 2017 resulting in an alleged...

Cybersecurity Executive Resignation Dispute in Court

A cybersecurity awareness training company claims one of its executives resigned by mutual agreement and told a number of colleagues about it, the High Court heard. Metacompliance Ireland Ltd is being sued by Mairéad Cosgrave, its senior vice-president of product and...

Recent Articles

Psychological Injury

Nervous Shock I The law allows recovery of damages for so called nervous shock, within certain parameters and subject to limitations.  Nervous shock is the most commonly used legal label for psychiatric or psychological injury. Psychiatric injuries include...

Public Authorities and Negligence

Powers and Duties In broad terms, public authorities are subject to civil liability for negligence and other civil wrongs, in the same way as private individuals and companies.  The State and other public bodies are responsible for the actions and omissions of...

Duty of Care (Part 2)

Limits to Neighbour Principle The famous neighbour principle re-stated the general basis of liability in negligence. It stated, that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your...

Duty of Care (Part 1)

Meaning of Negligence I Negligence is used in a number of senses.  In one sense, it refers to a person’s state of mind.  An act is negligent, where it is done without giving due weight to the risks involved.  A person  (and his state of mind) may...

Join our Panel

You May Also Like...