Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Reda  Yacout

ABM

Representatives

  Self Represented

 Alpha Employment Representation Services

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-00066769-002

17/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00066769-001

17/10/2024

The Complainant is employed as a Cleaning Operative and made a verbal submission under the Employment Equality Act which claimed he was being discriminated against due to harassment and indirect discrimination.  The Complaint under the Equality Act was withdrawn.

The Complainant was requested to submit a written submission in advance of the Hearing but choose not to do so. He gave verbal evidence under affirmation at the Hearing regarding his complaint.

He stated he started work as a Bin Man but was moved against his will and was bullied into doing the new job.

He stated he had an issue with a guy going to the Coffee shop.

He stated he had issues with cleaning and organic materials.

He stated he cant smell anymore due to foul blood material.

He stated he was suspended for 3 months for aggressive behaviour.

He stated he had complaints about blood at the time. He stated he raised his issues over a number of months and his anxiety was high and he lost holidays.

He stated he was sent to the Doctor.

He stated he had an issue with gloves and a blood test.

He stated he was told by someone he should shut his mouth.

He stated he was a Chef by trade.

He stated “if they could kill me they would”.

He stated his Supervisors leave him alone now.

He stated he loses sleep and lost confidence to try for other jobs.

He stated he sent 25 emails but got no response.

He stated the place should be sparking clean like a hotel.

ABM, one of the world’s largest providers of facility services and solutions acquired Momentum Support (“Momentum”) in April 2022. Momentum Support was a trading name of Maybin Support Services (Ireland) Limited and was established in 1982. Employing in excess of 2,300 people and delivering more than 3 million hours of service per annum, the Company provides award-winning consistently high standard of Soft Services to businesses and organisations based in UK and Ireland.

The Complainant began employment as a Cleaning Operative on the 19th January, 2024. Since the 4th February 2025 the Complainant was suspended from duty on full pay pending the outcome of an internal disciplinary process.  He has returned to work since.

General Background/Timeline of Notable Dates

17th October 2024: The Complainant submits a formal complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission.

29th October/11the November 2024: Ms Sinead Grogan, Senior Operations Manager, arranges for paid leave for the Complainants wellbeing.

6 th November 2024: Ms Sinead Grogan, authorises an appointment with the Company Doctor as she had concerns regarding the Complainants general wellbeing.

14th November 2024: The Complainant sends an email to Human Resources citing grievances he has with the Company.

 27th November 2024: Ms Grogan invites the Complainant to a meeting to discuss the detail of his email of the 14th November 2024.

 5 th December 20024: A grievance meeting took place. Unfortunately the Complainant was uncooperative in that he refused to provide any particulars in relation to his grievance. In addition Ms Grogan found it necessary close down the meeting as in her view the Complainant became quite animated and aggressive. The note taker at this meeting was Ms Ita Ahearne who is ABM’S X Site Manager..

 5 th December 20024: The Complainant emails Human Resources and advises, inter alia: “now work place relations they told me that they will intervene in a few days so I ask them to inform the X site to protect me from acts of bullying…”

8 th December 2024: The Complainant sends a further email to Human Resources and declares, amongst other things, “ I kindly ask you to inform Mrs Sinead that future meetings with her must only be one to one to avoid any prestige or acts of intimidation towards me…”

13th December 2024: The Company advise the WRC that they have only become aware of the Complainant’s WRC complaint of the 17th October 2024.

4 th February 2025: Following a serious allegation made by a Senior Manager of the Site where the Complainant is deployed against the Complainant, the Company is processed this matter as per their Disciplinary Procedures. The Complainant has been placed on paid suspension throughout this period but returned to work on Wednesday 16 th April 2024.

21st February 2025: The WRC advises that the Complainant is no longer interested in mediation.

7 th April 2025: The Company receives notification from the WRC that the Complainant has submitted another complaint which appears to be possibly linked to this current case.

 Respondent’s Arguments; Within the Complainant’s WRC Complaint form CA-00066769 he alleges that there was only one incident of discrimination and that it occurred on the 17th October 2024. Unfortunately the Complainant refused to give any further details during the investigation meeting held on the 5th December 2024. Over many months leading to October 2024 the Complainant informally raised multifarious allegations and complaints regarding his workplace. On every occasion these grievances appeared resolved by members of ABM’s Management team. At no time did the Complainant formally raise his concerns prior to him submitting his complaint to the WRC. Every effort has been made by the Company to support the Complainant’s personal wellbeing and it is irrational, unfair and unreasonable to allege that he has been discriminated against in any way by the Company. The company has no difficulty in investigating any grievances providing that they are conducted in a respectful and professional manner.

 In light of all contained herein the company  requested the Adjudication Officer to reject the Complainant’s complaints as a consequence of all the circumstances that prevailed.

The Complainant initially submitted a complaint under the Equal Status Act and as he was an employee and the complaint form was incomplete he was written to by the WRC and the difference between the Equal Status Act and the Employment Equality Act were explained to the Complainant and the Complainant chose to amend his complaint to one under the Employment Equality Act.

The Complainant selected five types of discrimination in the complaint form; Housing Assistance/Other/Harassing him/Indirect discrimination/Ongoing Discrimination. 

On the 6th of December 2024 the WRC wrote to the Complainant seeking further information regarding his complaint. They asked for the following information but received no reply.

What is the most recent date of discrimination?

Please say how you were discriminated against by reason of.

Please say how the respondent treated you unlawfully by discriminating against you.

The Representative stated at the Hearing that following the receipt of the WRC complaint the Respondent made efforts to have meetings with the Complainant and arranged for paid leave. The Respondent stated that the Complainant had not set out any particulars of a complaint and that he had been aggressive in meetings. The Respondent had offered mediation and wrote to the Complainant for details of who he alleged discriminated against him but got no reply. The Representative stated the Respondent understood all the complainants grievances had been resolved by local management. He stated the Complainant never raised the issues internally or through the grievance procedures and that he had provided no comparator for his complaint. He stated they tried to deal with the Complainants grievances on November 14th 2024 but had no success. He stated the Respondent tried to have a further meeting on December 5th but with no conclusion. He stated the Complainant would not listen at meetings. He stated the Respondent had given time off when the Complainants father sadly passed away. He stated one meeting had to be stopped as the Complainant was not co-operating. The Respondent stated they were willing to give the Complainant time off if he needed it to assist with his situation.

The evidence of the Complainant was given verbally and in an unstructured fashion and is stated above.  The Equality Legislation requires a person making a complaint under the Act to set out what kind of discrimination they have occurred and who is alleged to have conducted the discrimination. The Complainant failed to set out either of this information satisfactorily at the Hearing. The Adjudicator, despite repeated attempts, was unable to get the Complainant to set out his complaint in a manner that showed an alleged breach of the Act. Given this situation I declare the complaint not well founded.

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.   The Complainant withdrew his complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000 at the Hearing. CA-00066769-001

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act. I find that the Respondent has not engaged in a prohibited act under the Employment Equality Act. CA-00066769-002.

Equality