ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00057690

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Parties	Tesleem Abdulkareem	Bgs Security Ltd in liquidation

Representatives

Nicola Coleman

SIPTU

Tom Musiol and Steven Gyurko

Musiol Advisory

Complaint:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991	CA-00070009-001	14/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967	CA-00070009-002	14/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00070009-003	14/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997	CA-00070009-004	14/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998	CA-00070009-005	14/03/2025
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946	CA-00071534-001	13/05/2025

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/03/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 an employee can present a complaint or complaints of any perceived contravention by the Employer of any of the Acts (Statutes) contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015. Any such complaint (usually presented in the form of a workplace relations complaint form) is made to the Director General of the WRC. The said Director General can then refer the complaint to the Adjudication services. It is in these circumstances that this matter has come before me - an Adjudication Officer engaged by the Adjudication division of the WRC - to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or complaints made. Where appropriate, I hear the parties’ oral evidence, and I can give consideration to any supporting evidence provided by witnesses or relevant documentation.

In this instance, the Complainant has made several complaints of the Employer having contravened Acts contained in Schedule 5 above referred to. This includes two alleged contraventions of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. These include:

A contravention of Section 11 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 which directs that an employee shall be entitled to a rest period of not less than 11 consecutive hours in each period of 24 hours that an employee works for an employer. In practical terms this mean that once an employee finishes work they must have at least eleven uninterrupted hours off before they start working again. There are exceptions.

A contravention under Section 13 of the Act which concerns weekly rest periods and which, in general terms, directs that an employee shall, in each period of 7 days, be granted a rest period of at least 24 consecutive hours.

It is noted that pursuant to Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (as amended), a decision of an adjudication officer as provided for 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 remuneration.

The Complainant has also brought a single complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is also an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015. This amounts to a complaint of acontravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act provides that an employer must pay wages that are properly payable to an employee. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.

The Complainant has brought a further and separate complaint concerning his pay. The Complainant asserts that the Employment Regulation Order governing the security industry is directly applicable to this workplace. Employment Regulation Orders (EROs) prescribe, among other matters, minimum pay rates for employees working in certain sectors or industries. The Complainant asserts that the Employer has contravened elements of the relevant ERO.

Section 45 (A) of the Industrial Relations Act sets out the relief which can be sought where such a contravention has been found to exist.

S45A.— A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of an employment regulation order in relation to a worker shall do one or more of the following, namely—

(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,

(b) require the employer to comply with the employment regulation order, or

(c) require the employer to pay to the worker compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances, but not exceeding 2 years’ remuneration in respect of the worker’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

In addition to the foregoing the Complainant has brought a separate complaint under the Employment Equality Acts. In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 (as amended) a complaint can be referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn deems it appropriate that the complaint be investigated with any appropriate and/or interested persons to be provided with an opportunity of being heard. I can confirm that I am an Adjudicator appointed for this purpose.

In general terms, an Adjudication Officer cannot entertain a complaint presented after the expiration of the period of six months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. Section 77(5) of the Employment Equality Act states:-

“…a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.”

The Complainant herein has referred a matter for adjudication as provided for under Section 77 of the 1998 Act (as amended). In particular the Complainant (as set out in his Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 14th of March 2025) seeks redress from the Respondent in circumstances where he claims his Employer behaved unlawfully and discriminated against him in the course of his employment wherein he says that he was treated less favourably than another person has or would have been treated in a comparable situation on the grounds of his Race (as detailed in Section 6 of the 1998 Act (as amended)).

The Operative Section is Section 6 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 where :-

Sub Section 6 (1) For the purpose of this Act…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) …...(the “discriminatory grounds”).

Section 6 (2) As between any 2 persons the discriminatory grounds .. are…

(h) That they are of a different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (..the ground of race”),

In the event that the Complainant’s claim is upheld, it is open to me to make an award of compensation for the effects of the acts of discrimination which have occurred and/or the victimisation experienced. It is also open to me to direct that a certain course of action be taken by an appropriate party which might eliminate such an occurrence in the future (per Section 82 of the 1998 Employment Equality Act).

Background:

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road. This was a hybrid hearing. To facilitate the Liquidator appointed to wind down the Respondent’s affairs, the WRC was able to set up a hybrid scenario which allowed the Liquidator be heard by way of remote attendance which is provided for pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/2020 which said instrument designates the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings pursuant to Section 31 of the Principal Act. The said remote contact was set up and hosted by an appointed member of the WRC administrative staff. I am satisfied that the Complainant party was not prejudiced by having a part of this hearing conducted remotely. I am also satisfied that I was in a position to fully exercise my functions and I made all relevant inquiries in the usual way.

The Specific Details of the Dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 14th of March 2025.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant was fully represented by his SIPTU Union Representative. I was provided with a comprehensive submission dated the 17th day of February 2026. The Complainant additionally relied on the submissions set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form. I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant (through his representative) in making his case.

The Complainant alleges that the Employer withheld remuneration which was due to be paid to the Complainant for the weeks of work from the 19th of December to the 21st of February 2025. The Complainant additionally has highlighted some contraventions of the Organisation of Working time Act and the Employment Regulation Order operating in the security sector. Lastly, the Complainant says that the Respondent engages in systemic racial discrimination.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. The Complainant must establish facts which tend to disclose that there is a reasonable cause of action or that there appears to have been a contravention of a Statute or Statutes. The Complainant must disclose a Prima Facie case in any discrimination claim.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent was represented by a Liquidator appointed by Orde of the High Court on the 10th of November 2025.

The Liquidator was not in a position to offer evidence either way in this matter.

The Liquidator was not in a position to confirm or rebut the Complainant’s evidence.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

Findings and Conclusions:

I have carefully considered the evidence adduced in the course of this hearing. The Complainant had the benefit of being ably represented by his SIPTU representative. Most of the evidence adduced by the Complainant was unchallenged and therefore must be considered factual unless otherwise found by me in the course of inquiry.

It is common case that the complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent company as a Security Guard in September of 2024. The employment only lasted five month. The Complainant was placed in different convenience stores around the capital city. From December 19th 2024, to February 21st 2025, the Respondent did not pay him, anything for his labour. Over this period, he worked 365 hours and should have been paid €5,292 (inclusive of 8% holiday pay).

The Complainant was sent home on the 21st of February 2025 at which time it seems that his Employer had lost the contract for the various stores wherein the Complainant had been placed. The Complainant never heard from this Employer again. As noted, the Employer has since gone into Liquidation.

The Complainant and, on his instruction, the Complainant’s SIPTU representative have gone to extraordinary lengths to try and track down the Employer as a registered entity and through it’s Directors. This has yielded no result. The Complainant is now aware that he is one of many employees abandoned by this Employer and all of whom have wound up out of pocket by reason of the seemingly unscrupulous behaviour of this Employer.

The Complainant further asserts that the unique characteristic which he and all of his fellow colleagues’ share is their racial profile which is not white and not Irish. The Complainant asserts that the actions of his Employer...

…disclose a consistent pattern of treatment by the Respondent which contain a strong inference of racial discrimination and forms the factual basis of the Complainant’s complaint of discrimination on the ground of race, contrary to section 77 of the Employment Equality Acts.

The Complainant is just one of scores of black migrant workers, who worked for this Respondent and who were not paid for their labour. The fact of his case in the context of the broader picture is indicative of systematic and deliberate exploitation of the labour of people of the Complainant’s race and ethnicity and others who are Asian.

CA-00070009-001 Payment of Wages Act 1991

On the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Complainant was not paid for the period between December 19th 2024 and February 21st 2025 . I am advised he worked 365 hours worked over that period, amounting to a remunerative entitlement of €5,292 (inclusive of 8% holiday pay). The evidence also disclosed that the Complainant was not paid any notice pay when his employment was terminated without warning on the 21st of February 2025 and calculates that he is owed €1,392 in notice pay.

CA-00070009-002 Hours of Work Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant did not receive daily rest periods in contravention of the Act. His rosters demonstrate that he was regularly rostered to work shifts until 11.30 p.m. and was then rostered to work at 9.00 a.m. the following day. The daily rest specified in the Act is 11 hours. In this instance the Respondent rostered the Complainant to work with only a 9 and a half hour break between shifts. The statement of terms and conditions given to the Complainant references the Act and says that employees will receive appropriate rest breaks depending on the length of your shift and in accordance with the Acts. However, despite the Respondent being aware of their obligations under the Act, these were not applied to the Complainant.

CA-00070009-003 Hours of Work Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant contends that he did not receive a weekly rest period in contravention of the Act. He regularly worked 6 days a week and covering 2 shifts amounting with less than an 11 hour break and no 24 hour break.

The statement of terms and conditions given to the Complainant references the Act and says that employees will receive appropriate rest breaks depending on the length of your shift and in accordance with the Acts.

CA-00071534-001 Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

The Complainant representative has asked that I have regard for the deliberate and complete failure of the Respondent to comply with the Employment Regulation Order, in circumstances where the Complainant was paid no wages whatsoever, and also haver regard for the Respondent’s sustained failure both to remunerate the Complainant in accordance with the ERO and to engage with him in a manner consistent with even the most basic standards. The Complainant submits that the seriousness of these breaches cannot be overstated.

The Respondent was expressly on notice that the Complainant was in a state of acute vulnerability, including being the main breadwinner for his young family. The Respondent failed to take any remedial action whatsoever or to even communicate with him. This is a serious breach of the ERO which exists to protect the terms and conditions of all of workers in the Sector. The Respondent, by running their business on a model of free labour, undercut other employers in a competitive market and undermined the terms and conditions of every single worker employed in the sector including many SIPTU members.

CA-00070009-005 - Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

The Respondent has asked that I categorise the treatment of the Complainant as inherently discriminatory grounded on the fact that the Complainant is a non-national and/or of a different race. For this assertion to be true I would have to be satisfied that no white Irish born person was being treated as heartlessly as the Complainant herein. The Complainant representative concedes that she has not been able to source such an Employee as a comparator, and she asserts that the likelihood is that all the Employees are non-nationals of different races. However, the evidence does include the names of some people known to the Complainant and with whom he interacted at some level in the course of the employment. Even if these individuals were Line Managers there is nothing to suggest that when it came to the collapse of the company these persons were treated differently and more favourably than the Complainant.

I am absolutely satisfied that the complainant has been treated very badly. That is not in doubt. However, I cannot make the leap to his being discriminated against on the ground of race.

Decision:

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

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.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00070009-001 – Ther complaint herein is well founded, and I make an award in the sum of €6,685.00.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00070009-002 - This complaint was withdrawn in circumstances where the Complainant had inadequate service.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00070009-003 – The complaint herein is well founded, and I make an award in the sum of €1,000.00

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00070009-004 - The complaint herein is well founded, and I make an award in the sum of €1,000.00

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

CA-00070009-005 – I am not satisfied that the Complainant has made out a Prima Facie case of discrimination.

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

CA-00071534-001 – The complaint that the Employer has failed to comply with the applicable employment regulation order is well founded, and I require the require the employer to pay to the worker compensation in the amount of €2,500.00 which I deem to be just and equitable having regard to all of the circumstances.

Dated: 13th of April 2026.

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath

Key Words: