ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055670

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Ciaran Donovan	Kingfisher PLG, trading as B&Q

Representatives

Self-represented

Lian Rooney, Ibec

Complaint:

Act	Complaint Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00067877-001	04/12/2024

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/09/2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering

Procedure:

In accordance with section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint.

The hearing was held in public at the Hearing Rooms of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) in Carlow. Written submissions and documentation were presented to the WRC and exchanged between the parties in advance of the hearing. The Respondent was represented by Lian Rooney, Ibec. Also in attendance for the Respondent was Sarah Whiteley, B&Q Naas Store Manager, and Mollie Watts, B&Q, Solicitor Apprentice. The Complainant was not represented but was accompanied by a relative for support. I outlined that as the Complainant was not represented, I would be available to assist the Complainant to present his case where necessary and appropriate as part of my statutory duty to inquire. I invited Ms Rooney to object if she had any difficulty with any assistance I provided during the hearing and that I would hear that objection. Having regard to the fact that the Complainant was unrepresented, I took care to ensure the Complainant understood the process to be followed during the Hearing. The Complainant confirmed at the outset of the hearing that his claim was one of discrimination contrary to the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015. All witnesses who gave evidence were sworn in.

At the adjudication hearing the parties were advised that in accordance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 employment rights and equality hearings before the WRC are held in public and that the decision would not be anonymised unless there were special circumstances for doing so. There was no application to have the matter heard in private or to have the decision anonymised.

In coming to my decision, I have taken account of the relevant evidence before me provided by way of oral testimony and written submissions.

Background:

The Complainant contends he commenced employment with the Respondent on the 26th of November 2024, and that he was dismissed on the 2nd of December 2024 on the ground that he had a criminal conviction. The Complainant submits that he was discriminated against on the ground of criminal conviction contrary to the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2015. The Respondent submits that the Complainant was not engaged under a contract of employment and that the complaint under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2015 is misconceived.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Oral Testimony of the Complainant (under oath)

The Complainant outlined to the hearing that he was offered a job by the Deputy Manager who was aware that the Complainant had a criminal conviction and had recently been released from prison. The Deputy Store Manager told the Complainant to present for work on the 26th of November 2024. Three other employees also started employment that day. The Complainant was required to fill out personal information, uniform and pension related forms. He completed manual handling training also that day. He was advised that a written contract of employment would be given to him the following day. The Complainant was told to report for work again the following Friday, however, he received a call from another manager the day prior to say his clock-in card was not ready yet. On Monday the 2nd of December 2024, he received a call from Sarah Whiteley, the Store Manager. She told the Complainant that the Respondent had to terminate the Complainant’s employment because he had a criminal conviction. The Complainant submitted that the Deputy Store Manager and the Store Manager knew he had a criminal conviction when they offered him employment as a close relative works for the Respondent and the Store Manager had met with this relative to check on her welfare while the Complainant was in prison. The Complainant was at a loss as to why the Respondent then terminated his employment for this reason. The Complainant submitted that the Respondent’s actions in hiring and then firing him were discriminatory. The Complainant rejected the Respondent’s submission that it was only a job offer that had been rescinded. Instead, he was employed, and he was dismissed.

In response to the Respondent’s preliminary submission that the Complainant’s claim is misconceived as criminal conviction is not one of the protected grounds under the Employment Equality Acts, the Complainant submitted that at the time he referred his complaint to the WRC he thought criminal conviction was a protected ground, but that he is now aware this is not the case. He added that what the Respondent did was wrong and negligent.

In cross-examination, the Complainant accepted that he did not receive a written contract of employment. The Complainant confirmed that he did not have an interview with Ms Whiteley, and he accepted that his first contact with Ms Whiteley was the call on the 2nd of December 2024.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

Ms Rooney submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant’s complaint was misconceived as criminal conviction is not a protected ground under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2015.

Oral Testimony of Ms Whiteley (under affirmation)

Ms Whiteley outlined that the first time she spoke to the Complainant was the call on the 2nd of December 2024 to inform the Complainant that the offer of employment was withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of the Respondent Ex- Offenders Policy. Ms Whiteley outlined to the hearing that she approves all hire requests. She received an “Authorisation for Hire” form for approval from HR. When she saw the Complainant’s name, she rejected the authorisation sought and requested further information. No interview paperwork accompanied the authorisation as only a phone interview had been conducted with the Complainant and the Deputy Store Manager. Normal practice is to conduct an in-person interview also. The paperwork a manager is required to complete in an in-person interview asks about criminal conviction. It is not usual practice to offer employment without the in-person interview having been completed and it is not normal practice to bring a prospective employee in to complete personal, uniform and pension forms and manual handling training as happened in this case. Ms Whiteley outlined that the first time it came to her attention that the Complainant was being considered for employment was the 27th of November 2024.

The Complainant asked Ms Whiteley about the dates on the authorisation printout opened to the hearing by the Respondent. It was put to Ms Whiteley that the provisions of the Ex-Offenders Policy were not read out to him during their call on the 2nd of December 2024. Ms Whiteley was asked how the Deputy Manager had failed to follow correct recruitment procedure. Ms Whiteley responded that she was not going to offer an opinion, other than what the Deputy Manager did was not in line with the normal recruitment practice.

Findings and Conclusions:

Relevant Law:

Section 77A(1) of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2015 (“the Acts”) provides:

“The Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter” (emphasis added).

Findings:

The Complainant confirmed to the hearing that his complaint is one of discrimination on the ground of criminal conviction. The Complainant must establish that he is covered by one of the protected grounds under the Acts. Criminal conviction is not a protected ground under the Acts.

I find the treatment complained of does not fall under any of the protected grounds under the Acts and therefore the complaint is misconceived.

Decision:

Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Acts.

I decide this complaint under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2015 is misconceived and I dismiss the complaint.

Dated: 10th September 2025.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Bríd Deering

Key Words:

Discrimination. Criminal Conviction. Complaint misconceived.