Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Umair  Qurban

Securway At Risk Security Group Limited

Representatives

  In person

 Warren Parkes Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00057010-001

07/06/2023

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a security officer from 31st March 2023 until his dismissal on 6th June 2023. The complaint alleges that he was dismissed for discriminatory reasons and/or for opposing discrimination.

Note: Much of the complainant’s submission dated 25th October 2023 relates to shift allocation and the complainant’s dissatisfaction with same. The submission dated 27th August 2025 relates to alleged acts of discrimination, harassment and victimisation. I note that the complainant has not submitted complaints of discrimination, harassment or victimisation. The complaint submitted on 7th June 2023 relates to an assertion that there were discriminatory reasons for the dismissal and/or that the dismissal was because the complainant opposed discrimination.

The complainant alleges that he was dismissed for discriminatory reasons and/or for opposing discrimination. The complainant stated that he was informed his dismissal related to poor timekeeping but, in reality, he contends it was because of him raising issues of discriminatory treatment and exploitative practices within the employment.

The complainant submitted extensive written submissions in respect of his complaint dated 25th October 2023 and 27th August 2025. The complainant asserts in these submissions that he was initially informed that he would receive 48 hours of work per week. The rate of pay for the position was lower than his previous employment but the complainant was informed that this was because the work was easier. The complainant outlined that he would often receive less hours than promised and would then be expected to cover many other shifts for those unavailable at short notice. The complainant stated that the requirement to cover others at short notice affected his studies and his work life balance and he was aware that if he did not make himself available, he would be rostered even less.

The complainant stated that he outlined his concerns to management in relation to these discriminatory and exploitative practices by email on 2nd June 2023 and copied the client of the respondent in relation to the practices of the respondent. The complainant stated that he was then summarily dismissed for opposing the discriminatory treatment on 6th June 2023.

Preliminary Point

The respondent’s representative raised a preliminary point that the complainant has, in his submissions dated 27th August 2025, sought that the WRC make a finding of unlawful discrimination and harassment against the respondent. The respondent contends that, in those circumstances, the complainant has removed the jurisdiction from the Adjudication Officer because of the limited redress which may be ordered under Section 82 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998.

Substantive complaint

The respondent noted that the complainant is alleging discriminatory dismissal for, inter alia, opposing discriminatory treatment and exploitative practices in the employment. The respondent refutes these assertions in their entirety.

The respondent’s position is that the complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct. The respondent stated that the complainant issued an email to a client of the respondent on 2nd June 2023 where he was assigned as a security officer. The respondent stated that the contents of the email were defamatory and referred to the client as “the real criminal” in relation to the rostering issues and other operational matters that the complainant was dissatisfied with. The respondent confirmed that the complainant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct at a meeting with his manger due to the contents of the email sent on 2nd June 2023 and the egregious nature of his behaviour towards the respondent’s client.

The Applicable Law

Sections 6 (1) and (2) of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 at relevant parts state:

6.(1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the "discriminatory grounds") which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) a person who is associated with another person—

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination.

(2) As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are—

(a) - (g) not relevant…… 

(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (in this Act referred to as “the ground of race”),

Respondent’s preliminary point

I note the respondent’s preliminary point in relation to the redress sought by the complainant. On this issue I note that the complainant is representing himself at adjudication and sought a declaration that he was discriminated against and harassed by the respondent. The respondent argues this is not a valid redress option under Section 82 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998. I further note that the complainant, in his complaint form narrative is seeking “compensatory damages for the emotional distress caused and any other remedies that you deem appropriate based on your findings”. I am satisfied that I can address the “appropriate” redress options applicable to the complaint and do not accept the respondent’s argument that I do not have jurisdiction to do so.

Burden of Proof

Section 85A of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 provides as follows:

85A (1) Where in any proceeding’s 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.

(2) This section is without prejudice to any other enactment or rule of law in relation to the burden of proof in any proceedings which may be more favourable to a complainant.

(3) Where, in any proceedings arising from a reference of a matter by the Authority to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission] under section 85(1), facts are established by or on behalf of the Authority from which it may be presumed that an action or a failure mentioned in a paragraph of that provision has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

(4) In this section "discrimination" includes—

(a) indirect discrimination,

(b) victimisation,

(c) harassment or sexual harassment,

(d) the inclusion in a collective agreement to which section 9 applies of a provision which, by virtue of that section, is null and void.

Harassment and Victimisation complaints

A review of the documentation in relation to the complaint has confirmed that there were no complaints of harassment and victimisation submitted by the complainant in the within complaint. These issues are raised for the first time in the submissions dated 27th August 2025 and are outside of the statutory time frame for the referral of complaints to the WRC.

Conclusions

I have carefully considered the oral and written submission of the parties to this complaint. Formal evidence was not taken at this adjudication hearing on the basis that the factual matrix of the case was agreed between the parties and there were no disputed facts arising from the documentation submitted. The complainant represented himself and outlined his complaints by way of an oral summary of his written submissions.

Having reviewed the 8 page submission dated 25th October 2023, almost the entirety of the submission addresses issues of dissatisfaction to the complainant since his employment started. While the word “discriminatory” is mentioned twice in the document, there is nothing factual in the submission that would support an assertion that the complainant was being discriminated against or indeed that his dismissal was tainted with discrimination or was affected because he opposed discrimination.

I have already addressed the submission dated 27th August 2025 in respect of the timing of the issues raised in that submission and the fact that no complaints of harassment and victimisation were submitted to the WRC.

In respect of the email circulated on 2nd June 2023, I find that this too related to operational issues of dissatisfaction to the complainant as opposed to discriminatory treatment of the complainant on the part of the respondent. The email itself was very critical and did refer to the respondent’s client as being “the real criminal” in accepting contracts from the respondent.

In respect of the dismissal itself the respondent’s legal representative accepted that there would have been a different burden of proof in relation to the dismissal had the complaint been referred under the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and possibly some procedural deficiencies in that regard. However, the within complaint required the complainant to meet the burden of proving a complaint of discriminatory dismissal/dismissal for opposing discrimination.

In all of the circumstances of the complaint, I find that the complainant has not satisfied the burden of proof that he was subject to a discriminatory dismissal or that he was dismissed for opposing discrimination. Accordingly, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

Discriminatory dismissal/ dismissed for opposing discrimination