The management of clothing business, Fazia’s Fashions has denied that it prevents persons of Chinese descent from entering the store following a complaint to the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) that it had done so.
According to documents provided, on April 28, the ERC received a complaint from Melanie McTurk that Fazia’s Collection of Longden and America streets was disallowing Chinese nationals from entering the store like any other citizen to conduct their business. On May 8, the complainant along with Chinese nationals visited Fazia’s Collection and they were refused entry and chased away.
This happened in the presence, hearing and view of three ERC investigators, the ‘particulars of complaint’ supplied by the ERC, which was made available by Fazia’s Fashions, said.
In a statement yesterday, the company said that on May 7, ERC Head, Juan Edghill along with four employees visited Fazia’s Fashions where they commenced taking photographs in one of the stores. The staff referred the photographers to a sign which said ‘No photograph or video recording allowed’, according to the statement.
It said that Edghill then accused the store of discriminating against Chinese people. The statement said that the allegation was denied and Edghill was informed that they did not permit photos to be taken in the business. According to the company, Edghill said that the business could be closed down and invited one of the managers to the Commission. “The manager in order to avoid losses to the business as a result of the public spectacle created by the Head of the ERC agreed to accompany the Head of the ERC in his vehicle to the Commission’s offices. During the interview by the head of the Commission, inquiries were made of the religious persuasion of the manager”, the statement said.
According to documents provided, on May 17, the ERC wrote to Terry Anderson – the manager of Fazia’s Fashions saying that it received a complaint from McTurk on May 12. The ERC, noting that it has a mandate to receive and investigate complaints of ethnic discrimination alleged to have been suffered, invited Anderson to attend a meeting on May 20 at the ERC’s boardroom.
On May 19, the company’s attorney, Nigel Hughes wrote to the ERC requesting details of the alleged complaint and the procedure which the ERC proposed to adopt to attend to the complaint. Hughes also said that in the interim, based on his advice, his client declines to meet with the ERC until the issues he raised were addressed.
On May 21, the ERC responded saying that after the complaint was reviewed by the Commission and having had preliminary discussions with a number of key stakeholders including the business community, the Commission’s view was that the matter may be settled amicably and expeditiously. It said that Anderson had indicated that he would prefer an approach where the matter could be settled cordially and the Commission would have met with him on May 17 with the intention to mediate in the matter.
The letter said that the proposed mediation exercise is to be chaired by Edghill, a trained mediator and the “usual principles with respect to mediation exercises will apply to these proceedings”. It said that the complainant will be requested to attend and may attend with legal counsel, if so desired. It also attached a summary of the complaint and asked for an urgent response.
On May 27, Hughes responded saying they are “perplexed” by the particulars of the complaint. He pointed out that the complaint was allegedly received by the ERC on April 28 but no particulars of the complaint were provided and “consequently our client cannot address the matter the particulars of which he is unaware”.
“We are instructed to further point out that since the Commission has (arrogated) upon itself both the powers of investigator and witness, it cannot properly purport to discharge the function of mediator as this may place it in a position of some conflict”, Hughes said.
He added that he was instructed to inform the Commission that his client declines the invitation in the May 21 letter.
In a statement signed by Anderson yesterday, Fazia’s Fashions rejected the allegations. It said it read with “consternation and disappointment the contents of the libelous and prejudicial press release” issued by the ERC in relation to the complaint made. The statement said that management and staff “unequivocally deny the spurious allegations of discrimination” levelled at the business by the ERC or anybody else.
It said the company always and will continue to welcome customers of every description and persuasion to its business.
According to the statement, the company has recently been the victim of “elaborate commercial espionage” and theft of its intellectual property whereby some of its competitors have resorted to the use and deployment of concealed cameras and other concealed recording devices which video and or electronically record clients’ exclusive designs and patterns “which are then reproduced in inferior quality and passed off to the public as our client’s products”.
It said that as a result, Fazia’s Fashions has restricted the use of cameras and other recording devices in their outlets.
The company’s statement said that the subsequent publication of the prejudicial and premature report by the ERC before Fazia’s Fashions has been heard on the allegation of bias “demonstrates the extent to which the capacity of the ERC to fairly adjudicate in this dispute has been irreparably impaired”. It condemned the ERC’s conduct and said it is “willing, ready and able to attend any properly constituted objective inquiry in any allegations of discrimination”.
