EDA2570

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00038100 (CA-00049295)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 on 14 December 2023. Labour Court hearings took place on 10 July 2025 and 4 September 2025.

The following is the Determination of the Court.

DETERMINATION:

This is an appeal by Ogungbemi Omojola David Yewande (the Complainant) against the Decision of an Adjudication Officer under the Employment Equality acts 1998 to 2015 (the Acts) in respect of his claim against his employer G4S Security Solutions (the Respondent). The claim was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on the 23 March 2022. The Adjudication Officer held that the Complainant had not established a prima facia case.

1 Background

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 8 April 2019, and his employment ceased on 31 March 2022. It is the Complainants position that he was discriminated against by his employer on the grounds of gender, civil status, race, harassment and victimisation. As the complaint was submitted to the WRC on 23 March 2022, the cognisable period under the Act is 24 Sept 2021 to 23 March 2022.

The Court held a case management conference on 15 November 2024 and invited the Complainant to make a further submission that identified, in respect of each ground he was claiming under the Acts, the act of discrimination he was relying on in the cognisable period, and the comparator he was relying on.   The Court set a deadline for receiving submissions from both parties. The Complainant informed the Court he was now located outside of Ireland and requested that he be facilitated with a remote hearing. The Respondent was agreeable to same.

A remote hearing was scheduled and opened on 10 July 2025. At the outset Mr Shearer BL on behalf of the Respondent, informed the Court that he would not be calling any witnesses, and was happy to have his submissions taken as read.  The Complainant’s original submission was taken as read and he commenced reading his supplemental submission. Connection was lost on a couple of occasions, but the Court secretary managed to re-establish connection. As the Complainant neared the end of his submission, connection was again lost and could not be reestablished.

The Court wrote to both parties and advised it would reschedule the remote hearing, but should connection be lost on the next occasion the Court was proposing, as provided for in section 47 (1) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, to dispose of the complaint by way of written submission only. Neither party raised any objection to that proposal. The hearing proceeded to conclusion on 4 September 2025.

2 Summary of Complainant’s submission.

The Complainant in his supplemental submission requested that the reckonable period under the Act be extended to cover the period February 2021 to February 2022. He submitted that these time periods were crucial to his claim and there were compelling reasons why the Court should extend the periods as set out above. He stated that his preference would be to have an extension from January 2020 to March 2022, but he accepted the legislation only provided for 12 months.

In respect of the gender ground, he submitted that his comparators are a white Caucasian Male and Female who visited the site he was working at, in and around 22 to 28 February 2022.

The Complainant described the act of discrimination as the comparators seeking to gain late access to the premises, ignoring his instruction to take a seat and trying to push through doors to access the escalator. The female used provocative language because he would not give her preferential treatment. Following this incident, he was removed by the Respondent from that particular site.

On the civil status ground, he confirmed that the comparators were the same as for gender and that he could not confirm their civil status. The act of discrimination related to the same incident on the same date, and was related to how the female treated him. It was his position that the Respondent treated him less favourably than the female and the male who attend at the site where he was working.

The Race ground, the Complainant confirmed that he is Nigerian-South African. He confirmed that he could not assert the race of the male and female he was relying on as comparators, but he assumes they are white Caucasian and it’s the same couple referenced under the other grounds. He also named three other people but provided no details in respect of their race or their relevance to the case. He identified the fact that he was moved from the site without an investigation where a complaint had been made against him and this was due to his race.

In respect of harassment, he submitted that he is relying on five of the nine grounds. He then referenced issues that had arisen between January 2019 to August 2021.

The Complainant stated that in and around 24 September 2021 he was only getting 4 hours a week work and other employees were getting between 60 to 90 hours a week. The Complainant stated this also constituted victimisation.

The Complainant submitted that the Court should demand CCTV footage from the Respondent in respect of the incident on 28 February 2022.

He confirmed that he was seeking compensation of 4 million euros, requesting that the Employer publish a written apology in global newspapers and world TV, and issue a certificate of good conduct to him.

3 Summary of Respondent’s submission

The Complainant in his submission has raised issues going back a number of years and outside of the cognisable period the only issue raised that falls within the statutory period is in respect of an incident on 27 February 2022 while deployed at one of the Respondent’s client’s sites. The Complainant submits that he was subject to derogatory remarks by a patient of the Respondent’s client (not a G4S employee) and the next day the Respondent removed him from the site without good reason. In fact, the Respondent’s client requested that he be removed due to reports of inappropriate comments by him to the client’s staff and concerns regarding his approach to patients.  The Complainant was advised of the position and that the Respondent was seeking more information from its clients. He was informed that alternative work would be offered to him. On 3 March 2022 the Complainant emailed the Respondent’s scheduler stating that he did not wish to be scheduled for any shifts and would not honour any shifts he was scheduled for until he received an explanation as to why he was removed from the site. The Respondent continued to offer him shifts for approximately a further three months. However, he refused all offers of work and expressly told the Respondent not to contact him. Mr Shearer BL submitted that at no time was the Complainant discriminated against by the Respondent nor was he harassed and victimised as alleged.

4 The Law

The Workplace Relations Act 2015 at section 6 states:

 (6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

5 Discussion

The Court first considered the Complainant’s application for an extension of time. However, as set out above the WRA Act provides for the application to be made at first instance. In this case no such application was made.  Therefore, the Court is restricted initially to considering breaches of the Act during the period 24 Sept 2021 to 23 March 2022.

The alleged breach during that period relates to an engagement that the Complainant had with a patient of the Respondent’s client. The Complainant in relation to the grounds he has identified has failed to identify a relevant comparator and has failed to identify an act of discrimination by the Respondent linked to any of the grounds he pursued his complaint under. On that basis the Court must find that the appeal fails.    

6 Determination

For all the reasons set out above, the Court finds that the Complainant has failed to identify a breach of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal fails, and the Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so Determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AM	______________________
02 October 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ms Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.