ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057680
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Shabbir Ahmed | ICTS (Ireland) Ireland |
Representatives |
| Hugh Hegarty Peninsula Business Services Ireland |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00069989-001 | 14/03/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 25/08/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or complaints. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered.
The Complainant herein has made a complaint of a contravention of a section of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 which is an act contained in Schedule 5 of the WR Act aforesaid.
In particular, the Complainant has alleged that the employer has contravened Section 26 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 whichstates that an employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation of an employee for invoking any right or entitlement conferred onto the employee by the OWT Act. In addition, the employee shall not be penalised for having opposed an act perceived to be unlawful under the OWT Act or for giving evidence in proceedings under the Act.
Pursuant to Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (as amended), a decision of an adjudication officer under Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act shall do one or more of the following:
- (i) Declare the complaint was or was not well founded;
- (ii) Require the Employer to comply with the relevant provision;
- (iii) Require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount as is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances but not exceeding 2 years (b) having in good faith opposed by lawful means an act that is unlawful under this Act,
Background:
This hearing was to be conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was to be conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.
Had evidence been given it would have been in compliance with the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 which came intoeffecton the 29th of July 2021, and which said legislation accommodates situations where there is the potential for a serious and direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint. In such circumstances, an oath or an affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. It is noted that the giving of false statements or evidence is an offence.
The complaint herein was brought to the attention of the WRC on the 14th of March 2025 by way of a workplace relations complaint form. In general term, I can consider contraventions of the Acts which are alleged to have occurred within the six-month period prior to that date. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not attend. I am satisfied that the Complainant was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 15th of July 2025 - and emailed to the email address provided by the Complainant on the workplace relations complaint form. The Complainant had specifically agreed to communication by electronic means when filling out his complaint form. The email was sent on the 16th of July 2025 From the Complaint form provided, I have discerned that the Complainant seeks to establish that his employer penalised him for having invoked his entitlements under the Organisation of Working Time Act. I understand that the Respondent intended defending the within complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent entity was present at the hearing date in the person of FM who is the Managing Director of the Company/Respondent entity. The Respondent had also engaged a HR consulting practice to assist with its presentation and defence. A submission on behalf of the Respondent was received in August of 2025. The Respondent rejects that there has been any breach or contravention of the Complainant’s legislative entitlements and rejects there has been a penalisation |
Findings and Conclusions:
As noted, the Complainant did not attend and having waited for half an hour on the morning of the hearing I advised the Respondent that this matter would be decided on the basis of the Complainant not showing up and giving evidence substantiating his allegation. It subsequently came to light that the Complainant had communicated with the Office of the WRC two days before the hearing (on a Saturday afternoon at 2pm) at which time the Complainant sent an email stating: Dear Sir / Madam Total I had hearing of ADJ00058422 & ADJ00057680 ADJUDICATION AT 12:30. I worked last night and I fell asleep. My phone alarm did not help. I am very sorry. Can I get a new date please. Regards Shabbir Ahmed Bizarrely, an almost identical email was received on the morning of the hearing (albeit after the time allocated to the hearing). This read: Dear Sir / Madam
Today I had hearing of ref ADJ00058422 & ADJ00057680 ADJUDICATION AT 12:30 in Lansdownehouse Dublin 4. I worked last night and I fell asleep. My phone alarm did not help. I missed it. I am very sorry. Can I get a new date please. Regards Shabbir Ahmed The Complainant did not make himself available to explain how two almost identical emails stating that he had missed the hearing date/time had been sent on the date of the hearing and also two days before the date of the hearing. I will put it no further than to suggest that it is unusual. The Complainant did not attend and therefore I did not hear any evidence from the Complainant substantiating the complaints made against the Respondent. In the circumstances I am considering the Complainant a no-show for the purpose of this hearing. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 CA-00069989-001 - The complaint herein is not well founded and fails.
|
Dated: 02nd September 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|