ADE/24/126
DECISION NO. EDA2561 |
SECTION 44, WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
SECTION 83 (1), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, 1998 TO 2015
PARTIES:
OASIS GLOBAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
MUHAMMEDNURULAIN BODA
DIVISION:
| Chairman: | Mr Haugh |
| Employer Member: | Mr O'Brien |
| Worker Member: | Ms Treacy |
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00037832 (CA-00049257-003).
BACKGROUND:
The Employer appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 on 28 August 2024.
A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 28 August 2025.
The following is the Determination of the Court:
DECISION:
Background to the Appeals
This is an appeal on behalf of Oasis Global Management Company (Ireland) Limited (‘the Respondent’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00037832/CA-00049257-003, dated 18 July 2024) under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (‘the Act’). There had been no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the first instance hearing. Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 28 August 2024. The Court heard the appeal in a virtual courtroom on 28 August 2025.
The Factual Matrix
Mr Muhammed Nurulain Boda (‘the Complainant’) is an Irish citizen of Indian extraction. He was employed by the Respondent from 21 March 2013 as a financial accountant. His employment terminated in early 2022. The date of termination and the circumstances in which it occurred are disputed. It is common case that the Complainant was also a director of the Respondent from 16 May 2019 until he resigned from that role by email dated 14 January 2022. His basic gross salary as of that date was €1,072.91.
The Respondent was authorised by the Central Bank of Ireland to act as a UCITS Management Company and was appointed manager of the Oasis Cresent Global Investment Fund (Ireland) Plc (‘the Irish Fund’). A related company, Oasis Cresent Wealth (UK) Limited (‘OCWUK’) is a UK-incorporated company authorised by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority to provide investment advice in respect of the products of the Irish Fund. In late 2019, a decision was taken to re-domicile the Irish Fund to the UK by way of a UCITS Merger with a mirror UK fund; to seek authorisation for OCWUK to act as a UK UCITS Management Company; and to appoint OCWUK as the manager and authorised corporate director of the UK Fund and thereafter to de-authorise the Respondent and the Irish Fund and to proceed to de-register all Irish-based entities. As of the date of hearing, however, the status of Respondent company continued to be listed as ‘normal’ on the Companies Registration Office’s database.
It is common case that the Complainant was offered and accepted employment with OCWUK although the salary he would receive and the date of his expected relocation to the UK had not been agreed prior to the cessation of his employment with the Respondent. The Parties had agreed that all other material terms of the Complainant’s contract would remain in place and that his service with the Respondent and OCWUK would be deemed continuous. The Complainant appear to have had a change of heart about relocation from Ireland in late 2021 and began to seek out alternative employment opportunities in Ireland. He received and accepted an offer of employment with a well-known investment bank on 14 January 2022 on which date he wrote an email with the following subject line to his employer: “Resignation letter – OGMCI Director and last day employment confirmation”.
The body of the email reads as follows:
“RE: Notice of my last day at Oasis Global Management Company (Ireland) Limited
Thank you so much to the Executive Directors for giving me an opportunity to work with Oasis Global Management Company (Ireland) Limited.
After careful consideration and subsequent discussion with my family, I regret to inform that I do not wish to accept employment offer with Oasis Crescent Wealth (UK) Limited.
I wish to remind that my employment contract is with Oasis Global Management Company (Ireland) Limited which has formally been closed in Ireland and thus wound up. Also, an application for revocation of authorisation and liquidation has been filed with the Central Bank of Ireland which ultimately ceased my employment relationship with this company. As a professional courtesy, I will render one month of my services to help during this transition which will include effective 14 February 2022. Further to a foregoing, I have been training the team since last six months and they have performed all the daily tasks during my absence in November 2021.
As company has formally wound up, I would be grateful if the statutory redundancy related entitlement can be paid. Lastly, I would appreciate if I can be issued with the reference letter for my services with the company.
In addition, I haven’t received my full bonus payment which I was entitled to during 2021. The company’s policy was to pay this amount (Euro 4,000) over three years period, however, since the company has already closed down, I wish to confirm if my remaining employment-related entitlements i.e. bonus and profit share payment will be paid.
Please find the attached resignation letter as well.
Kind regards,
Nurulain”
On receipt of the Complainant’s email, management arranged for his immediate disconnection from the Respondent’s IT systems for ‘security reasons’ and removed him from payroll. This was confirmed to the Complainant in an email from the HR Department on 16 January 2022. The Complainant wrote on numerous occasions thereafter seeking his ‘redundancy entitlements’. He eventually received a very lengthy reply from the Respondent on 28 April 2022 reciting the history of the Complainant’s employment with it, the engagement that had taken place between the Parties in relation to the Complainant’s relocation to the UK and denying that he had any entitlement in the circumstance to a redundancy payment. In that replying email, the Respondent also indicated that it was holding the Complainant to his contractual six months’ notice term. The Complainant took up his offer of employment with the investment bank on 3 May 2022.
The Complainant’s Submission and Evidence
The Complainant told the Court that he had been “harassed and abused” very badly by his superiors during his employment and particularly during the period leading up to, and following, the transfer of the Irish Funds to the UK i.e. between late 2019 and his resignation on 14 January 2022. He named one director, in particular, Mr Nazeem Ebrahim who, he said had been very rude to him and had a “harassing nature”. According to the Complainant, although he had been working extremely long hours on a daily basis and often over weekends, he continued throughout the aforementioned period to be harassed and abused by Mr Nazeem Ebrahim. The Complainant cited a specific example of the type of behaviour which Mr Ebrahim allegedly exhibited towards him. It was in the form of a screenshot from a WhatsApp exchange that took place, in either September or October 2021, in the Complainant’s recollection. In that exchange Mr Ebrahim wrote: “Nurailain [sic] is a lazy bastard!!! Press him Every day Every day Send him an email cc CEO and COO Make this your project to f**k him up He is not going to join us so he and [S] are not doing it!!!!”
The Respondent’s Submission
The Respondent submits that the team that worked on the transfer of the Irish Funds consisted of people of many different nationalities, races and skin colours and that each of them was asked to work hard and long hours to ensure the success of the project. The Respondent denies that the Complainant was treated more harshly than any other member of the team or was discriminated against on the race ground or at all. Finally, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Complainant had not made out a prima facie case of discrimination on the race ground.
Burden of Proof
Section 85A(1) of the Act provides as follows in relation to the burden of proof on a Complainant who alleges discriminatory treatment contrary to the Act:
“Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.”
This Court – in its determination in Southern Health Board v Mitchell [2001] ELR 201 – considered the extent of the evidential burden imposed on a Complainant by section 85A and held:
“The first requirement is that the claimant must establish facts from which it may be presumed that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them. This indicates that a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination.
It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there is no infringement of the principle of equal treatment.”
It follows that a complainant has to establish both the primary facts upon which he or she relies and also that those facts are of sufficient significance to raise an inference of discrimination. In Cork City Council v McCarthy EDA 21/2008, this Court stated in this regard:
“The type or range of facts which may be relied upon by a complainant may vary significantly from case to case. The law provides that the probative burden shifts where a complainant proves facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination. The language used indicates that where the primary facts alleged are proved it remains for the Court to decide if the inference or presumption contended for can properly be drawn from those facts. This entails a consideration of the range of conclusions which may appropriately be drawn to explain a particular fact or a set of facts which are proved in evidence. At the initial stage the complainant is merely seeking to establish a prima facie case. Hence, it is not necessary to establish that the conclusion of discrimination is the only, or indeed the most likely, explanation which can be drawn from the proved facts. It is sufficient that the presumption is within the range of inferences which can reasonably be drawn from those facts.”
In Melbury Developments Ltd v Valpeters [2010] ELR 64, however, the Court stated that “mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn”.
Discussion and Decision
The WhatsApp exchange that was exhibited by the Complainant paints Mr Nazeem Ebrahim in a very poor light. The Complainant’s evidence about the extremely long hours he was required to work for no additional remuneration was not rebutted. The Complainant’s evidence taken as a whole suggests that while working for the Respondent he was not treated with the respect and dignity that every employee has a right to. That is inexcusable. However, the evidence does not meet the threshold required to establish a prima facie case under the Act such as is required to shift the evidential burden to the Respondent.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court must find that the appeal succeeds. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is accordingly set aside.
The Court so determines.
 | Signed on behalf of the Labour Court |
| |
| Alan Haugh |
| TH | ______________________ |
| 10 September 2025 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.
ADE/24/126
DECISION NO. EDA2561 |
SECTION 44, WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 2015
SECTION 83 (1), EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACTS, 1998 TO 2015
PARTIES:
OASIS GLOBAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
MUHAMMEDNURULAIN BODA
DIVISION:
| Chairman: | Mr Haugh |
| Employer Member: | Mr O'Brien |
| Worker Member: | Ms Treacy |
SUBJECT:
Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00037832 (CA-00049257-003).
BACKGROUND:
The Employer appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 on 28 August 2024.
A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 28 August 2025.
The following is the Determination of the Court:
DECISION:
Background to the Appeals
This is an appeal on behalf of Oasis Global Management Company (Ireland) Limited (‘the Respondent’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00037832/CA-00049257-003, dated 18 July 2024) under the Employment Equality Act 1998 (‘the Act’). There had been no attendance by or on behalf of the Respondent at the first instance hearing. Notice of Appeal was received in the Court on 28 August 2024. The Court heard the appeal in a virtual courtroom on 28 August 2025.
The Factual Matrix
Mr Muhammed Nurulain Boda (‘the Complainant’) is an Irish citizen of Indian extraction. He was employed by the Respondent from 21 March 2013 as a financial accountant. His employment terminated in early 2022. The date of termination and the circumstances in which it occurred are disputed. It is common case that the Complainant was also a director of the Respondent from 16 May 2019 until he resigned from that role by email dated 14 January 2022. His basic gross salary as of that date was €1,072.91.
The Respondent was authorised by the Central Bank of Ireland to act as a UCITS Management Company and was appointed manager of the Oasis Cresent Global Investment Fund (Ireland) Plc (‘the Irish Fund’). A related company, Oasis Cresent Wealth (UK) Limited (‘OCWUK’) is a UK-incorporated company authorised by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority to provide investment advice in respect of the products of the Irish Fund. In late 2019, a decision was taken to re-domicile the Irish Fund to the UK by way of a UCITS Merger with a mirror UK fund; to seek authorisation for OCWUK to act as a UK UCITS Management Company; and to appoint OCWUK as the manager and authorised corporate director of the UK Fund and thereafter to de-authorise the Respondent and the Irish Fund and to proceed to de-register all Irish-based entities. As of the date of hearing, however, the status of Respondent company continued to be listed as ‘normal’ on the Companies Registration Office’s database.
It is common case that the Complainant was offered and accepted employment with OCWUK although the salary he would receive and the date of his expected relocation to the UK had not been agreed prior to the cessation of his employment with the Respondent. The Parties had agreed that all other material terms of the Complainant’s contract would remain in place and that his service with the Respondent and OCWUK would be deemed continuous. The Complainant appear to have had a change of heart about relocation from Ireland in late 2021 and began to seek out alternative employment opportunities in Ireland. He received and accepted an offer of employment with a well-known investment bank on 14 January 2022 on which date he wrote an email with the following subject line to his employer: “Resignation letter – OGMCI Director and last day employment confirmation”.
The body of the email reads as follows:
“RE: Notice of my last day at Oasis Global Management Company (Ireland) Limited
Thank you so much to the Executive Directors for giving me an opportunity to work with Oasis Global Management Company (Ireland) Limited.
After careful consideration and subsequent discussion with my family, I regret to inform that I do not wish to accept employment offer with Oasis Crescent Wealth (UK) Limited.
I wish to remind that my employment contract is with Oasis Global Management Company (Ireland) Limited which has formally been closed in Ireland and thus wound up. Also, an application for revocation of authorisation and liquidation has been filed with the Central Bank of Ireland which ultimately ceased my employment relationship with this company. As a professional courtesy, I will render one month of my services to help during this transition which will include effective 14 February 2022. Further to a foregoing, I have been training the team since last six months and they have performed all the daily tasks during my absence in November 2021.
As company has formally wound up, I would be grateful if the statutory redundancy related entitlement can be paid. Lastly, I would appreciate if I can be issued with the reference letter for my services with the company.
In addition, I haven’t received my full bonus payment which I was entitled to during 2021. The company’s policy was to pay this amount (Euro 4,000) over three years period, however, since the company has already closed down, I wish to confirm if my remaining employment-related entitlements i.e. bonus and profit share payment will be paid.
Please find the attached resignation letter as well.
Kind regards,
Nurulain”
On receipt of the Complainant’s email, management arranged for his immediate disconnection from the Respondent’s IT systems for ‘security reasons’ and removed him from payroll. This was confirmed to the Complainant in an email from the HR Department on 16 January 2022. The Complainant wrote on numerous occasions thereafter seeking his ‘redundancy entitlements’. He eventually received a very lengthy reply from the Respondent on 28 April 2022 reciting the history of the Complainant’s employment with it, the engagement that had taken place between the Parties in relation to the Complainant’s relocation to the UK and denying that he had any entitlement in the circumstance to a redundancy payment. In that replying email, the Respondent also indicated that it was holding the Complainant to his contractual six months’ notice term. The Complainant took up his offer of employment with the investment bank on 3 May 2022.
The Complainant’s Submission and Evidence
The Complainant told the Court that he had been “harassed and abused” very badly by his superiors during his employment and particularly during the period leading up to, and following, the transfer of the Irish Funds to the UK i.e. between late 2019 and his resignation on 14 January 2022. He named one director, in particular, Mr Nazeem Ebrahim who, he said had been very rude to him and had a “harassing nature”. According to the Complainant, although he had been working extremely long hours on a daily basis and often over weekends, he continued throughout the aforementioned period to be harassed and abused by Mr Nazeem Ebrahim. The Complainant cited a specific example of the type of behaviour which Mr Ebrahim allegedly exhibited towards him. It was in the form of a screenshot from a WhatsApp exchange that took place, in either September or October 2021, in the Complainant’s recollection. In that exchange Mr Ebrahim wrote: “Nurailain [sic] is a lazy bastard!!! Press him Every day Every day Send him an email cc CEO and COO Make this your project to f**k him up He is not going to join us so he and [S] are not doing it!!!!”
The Respondent’s Submission
The Respondent submits that the team that worked on the transfer of the Irish Funds consisted of people of many different nationalities, races and skin colours and that each of them was asked to work hard and long hours to ensure the success of the project. The Respondent denies that the Complainant was treated more harshly than any other member of the team or was discriminated against on the race ground or at all. Finally, Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Complainant had not made out a prima facie case of discrimination on the race ground.
Burden of Proof
Section 85A(1) of the Act provides as follows in relation to the burden of proof on a Complainant who alleges discriminatory treatment contrary to the Act:
“Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.”
This Court – in its determination in Southern Health Board v Mitchell [2001] ELR 201 – considered the extent of the evidential burden imposed on a Complainant by section 85A and held:
“The first requirement is that the claimant must establish facts from which it may be presumed that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them. This indicates that a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination.
It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there is no infringement of the principle of equal treatment.”
It follows that a complainant has to establish both the primary facts upon which he or she relies and also that those facts are of sufficient significance to raise an inference of discrimination. In Cork City Council v McCarthy EDA 21/2008, this Court stated in this regard:
“The type or range of facts which may be relied upon by a complainant may vary significantly from case to case. The law provides that the probative burden shifts where a complainant proves facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination. The language used indicates that where the primary facts alleged are proved it remains for the Court to decide if the inference or presumption contended for can properly be drawn from those facts. This entails a consideration of the range of conclusions which may appropriately be drawn to explain a particular fact or a set of facts which are proved in evidence. At the initial stage the complainant is merely seeking to establish a prima facie case. Hence, it is not necessary to establish that the conclusion of discrimination is the only, or indeed the most likely, explanation which can be drawn from the proved facts. It is sufficient that the presumption is within the range of inferences which can reasonably be drawn from those facts.”
In Melbury Developments Ltd v Valpeters [2010] ELR 64, however, the Court stated that “mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn”.
Discussion and Decision
The WhatsApp exchange that was exhibited by the Complainant paints Mr Nazeem Ebrahim in a very poor light. The Complainant’s evidence about the extremely long hours he was required to work for no additional remuneration was not rebutted. The Complainant’s evidence taken as a whole suggests that while working for the Respondent he was not treated with the respect and dignity that every employee has a right to. That is inexcusable. However, the evidence does not meet the threshold required to establish a prima facie case under the Act such as is required to shift the evidential burden to the Respondent.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court must find that the appeal succeeds. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is accordingly set aside.
The Court so determines.
| Signed on behalf of the Labour Court |
| |
| Alan Haugh |
| TH | ______________________ |
| 10 September 2025 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.