Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Amen  Kifle

Synergy Security Solutions

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr Walsh

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00073744-001

24/07/2025

1.      In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 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 by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

2.      I have carefully reviewed all written and oral evidence and noted the respective positions of the parties. I am not required to engage in a line‑by‑line rebuttal of evidence or submissions that I have rejected or deemed unnecessary, consistent with Faulkner v Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107, which confirms that administrative tribunals are required to provide only broad reasons. I am obliged to set out only the evidential material fundamentally relevant to my decision, in line with Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63.

3.      The parties were notified, in accordance with Zalewski v Adjudication Officer & WRC & Ors [2021] IESC 24, that evidence would be given under oath or affirmation and of the penalty for perjury. They were also advised of their right to cross‑examine and that the hearing would proceed in public.

4.      Complainant: The Complainant was self-represented and gave evidence under oath and was cross‑examined, with no further witnesses called.

5.      Respondent: The Respondent was represented by Mr Walsh who also gave evidence under oath and Mr Ahmad who gave evidence under oath and were both made available for cross- exam.

6.      Interpreter:

The Commission provided an Interpreter, Mr Delebo, who took an oath to be truthful in their translation.

7.      I received and considered all representations from the parties and undertook any enquiries deemed necessary. Having satisfied myself that all relevant submissions had been made, I formally closed the hearing

8.      The Respondent alleges that the Complainant was found asleep on duty during a compliance visit in July 2025 and set out that  this was initially admitted by the Complainant. They submit that sleeping on duty constitutes gross misconduct under its zero‑tolerance policy for security officers. It is contended that the dismissal followed a fair investigation, disciplinary process and appeal, and was reasonable and proportionate.

9.      The Complainant alleges that they were unfairly dismissed and denies sleeping on duty, stating they briefly closed their eyes due to a migraine during a long shift. The Complainant contends that the investigation and disciplinary process were procedurally flawed, that relevant evidence such as CCTV was not considered, and that inaccuracies went unexamined. It is submitted that the sanction of dismissal was disproportionate given the Complainant’s unblemished record and inconsistent treatment of a comparator employee.

10.   Background

The Complainant sets out the following in their complaint form and oral evidence .

This complaint concerns the alleged unfair dismissal of the Complainant  from employment as a Security Officer with the Respondent. The Complainant had over 12 months of service with a previously unblemished employment record and was regarded as punctual, reliable, and flexible.

No prior warnings or performance concerns had been raised prior to the incident giving rise to the dismissal.

11.  Events Leading to Dismissal

In July 2025, while working a 13‑hour shift without a break at PCC, Coolock, the Complainant was alleged to have been asleep on duty at approximately 5:30 a.m. The Complainant denied sleeping and explained that they were experiencing a migraine, had taken medication, and had briefly closed their eyes due to light sensitivity and pain. It is contended that this explanation was mischaracterised during the investigation.

12.  Flawed Investigation

The Complainant contends that the disciplinary process was fundamentally flawed. The Complainant was not represented at investigation or disciplinary meetings, was not provided with language translation support, and repeatedly requested that CCTV footage be reviewed to corroborate their account. This evidence was not examined. The decision‑maker relied primarily on a supervisor’s report, which the Complainant disputes as inaccurate, including assertions regarding door access that were demonstrably incorrect. No independent assessment of the facts or alleged inaccuracies was undertaken.

13.  Inconsistent Disciplinary Treatment

The Complainant also raised concerns regarding inconsistent disciplinary treatment. A comparator employee who had been found asleep on duty on two occasions was not dismissed but instead received a warning and was later promoted. This disparity gives rise to concerns regarding fairness and potential discriminatory treatment.

14.  Excessive Working Hours

In addition, the employer required the Complainant to work seven consecutive days without a break, despite requests for time off due to fatigue. This contributory factor was not considered as mitigation. The Complainant further expressed concern regarding potential bias following inappropriate questioning about religion by a supervisor.

15.  Summary

The dismissal is challenged on the grounds of lack of fair procedures, absence of prior disciplinary issues, disproportionate sanction, inconsistent application of discipline, employer contributory negligence regarding excessive working hours, and possible religious discriminatory bias.

The remedies sought include a finding of unfair dismissal, compensation for financial loss, reputational damage and distress, consideration of reinstatement or re‑engagement where appropriate, and a direction that the Respondent review and improve its disciplinary procedures to ensure fairness and consistency.

16.  Background

The Respondent set out the following in the submissions and oral evidence.

The Respondent  admits the Complainant was an employee and that they were subjected to a disciplinary process in July 2025. This arose the Complainant being found sleeping on the job during a compliance officers visit – the Respondent sets out that the Complainant admitted to sleeping on that  occasion and further admitted the same on a subsequent occasion to the General Manager, where he was suspended pending investigation.

17.  Process and Representation

The Respondent sets out that the Complainant was afforded all his natural justice rights and had the benefit of an investigation, and an appeal and during this time we was informed of his right to representation and chose to not have the same.

18.  Investigation

At investigation the Complainant denied that he was sleeping and on having his memory refreshed of formerly admitting that it was he again admitted this was the case. Following this a disciplinary meeting was held.

19.  Disciplinary meting and policy

The Complainant was informed of his right to representation and refused the same. As the seriousness of the charge was put to him, he was offered a further opportunity to  acquire representation which he refused, and these meeting minutes were agreed.

20.  Respondent  Policy

The Respondent has a zero-tolerance policy of security sleeping on the job given the nature of the work that they undertake for clients.

21.  Appeal

The Complainant was afforded an appeal of  the decision on the grounds that some of the information was incorrect and false. The Complainant put forth that the Respondent Compliance Officer claimed to have knocked on the door and waited for a minute for it to open. This was untrue because it was a coded door not locked and available to anyone with the code. The Complainant rejected the previous admission and claims the compliance officer lied as to his answer to the question of his being asleep. The Complainant pointed to his record as an employee and that the organisation did not allow access to CCTV to help him prove his case.

The appeal was arranged for the mid July  and the Respondent sets out the Complainant claimed he did not sleep but closed his eyes due to a migraine. The outcome of this was issued to the Complainant where the grounds had been considered and on the balance of probability the appeal officer was of the view that the decision should be upheld.

22.  Respondent Position

The Respondent stands over the decision and the appeal decision and sets out the seriousness of the infringement in light of the industry in which it operates, and the matter is too serious for anything less than dismissal due to the undermining of trust in their business and is within the bounds of reasonableness.

The Respondent submits that the dismissal was reasonable.

23.  Case Law Cited

The Respondent relies upon Jaroslaw Lukasiewicz v K-tech Security Unlimited Company ADJ-00026971, where the commercial implications justified the dismissal.

Donatus Okafor v Synergy Security Solution ADJ-00041011

Looney & Co. Limited -v- Looney (UD843/1984) regarding reasonableness

24.  Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015

The Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015 provide that a dismissal shall be deemed to be unfair unless the employer can show that it resulted wholly or mainly from one of the potentially fair grounds prescribed by the Acts, namely capability, competence or qualifications, conduct, redundancy, contravention of law, or some other substantial ground justifying the dismissal.

The statutory burden of proof rests on the employer to establish both that a fair reason existed and that the dismissal was carried out in accordance with fair procedures, including proportionality, thorough investigation, adherence to natural justice, and the availability of dismissal as a sanction of last resort. In determining redress, I  must have regard to section 7 of the Acts, which provides for reinstatement, re‑engagement, or compensation, the latter being subject to a statutory maximum and assessed by reference to actual financial loss attributable to the dismissal and the extent, if any, of the employee’s contribution to it, with reinstatement or re‑engagement being considered primary remedies where practicable and appropriate.

In the course of the hearing the Complainant touched on other issues of discrimination and excessive working hours which are not covered by the Act under which they have referred this complaint. Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that an employee may present a complaint to the Director General alleging a contravention of a provision specified in Part 1 or Part 2 of Schedule 5 of that Act. The Director General shall then refer the complaint for adjudication. The above complaint was referred to me in this way. From a plain reading of the complaint form, it is clear that the sole issue raised relates to and alleged unfair dismissal. No other matters were referred to the Director General in the complaint form, and accordingly this is the only issue over which I have jurisdiction.

25.  Contested Admission

It is contested and admitted at different stages that the Complainant admitted to being asleep and the records of the meetings where he had admitted have been signed by him. Whether he was or was not asleep is not something I can ascertain with absolute certainty, but his accepting and rejecting of the evidence means I must choose the preferred evidence and in this I prefer the well documented and consistent  contemporaneous evidence of the Respondent where the Complainant evidence has been less so.

26.  CCTV

The Complainant sets out that there is a flaw in the employer not looking at the CCTV. The evidence is that CCTV is not the property of the Respondent and it belongs to a third party. There are also  other issues arising from the use of CCTV in disciplinary investigation which I do not need to go into here.

27.  Robustness of Investigation Disciplinary and Appeal

I can find no fault with the Respondent investigation nor appeal . The Complainant has challenged the fairness in not having a translator and is clear from his evidence that he has a qualification that requires he had a proficiency of B1 in English (or Irish) that I find sufficient for understanding the investigation and following procedures.

28.  Inconsistent Disciplinary Treatment

The Complainant also raised concerns regarding inconsistent disciplinary treatment. However, the Complainant produced no witnesses to this effect, and I cannot accept such evidence where it is a matter of  hearsay.

29.  Excessive Working Hours

The Complainant sets out being ill and reporting this to the control room but offers me no evidence of this. The Respondent set out that they were a stranger to this and had never heard it mentioned prior and unable to comment.

30.  Respondent Policy

The Respondent has convincingly set out the impact of the matter could have on their business and for that reason has a zero policy on the issue of Security Guards sleeping on the job. As per the cited case of Lukasiewicz this is not excessive in that industry for this type of work, and I cannot find fault in light of the case law.

31.  Burden of Proof and Balance of Probabilities

As per Bank of Ireland v Reilly [2015] IEHC 241, the test is the response of a “reasonable employer”. It is not my role to reinvestigate the entire matter, but on the basis of the evidence presented to me ask if it appears  to be the decision of a reasonable employer in the position of the Respondent to dismiss;  where the trust was lost in the Complainant and the event was one that would ultimately undermine their business.

For this reason, I have concluded that the Respondent following their robust procedures were entitled to consider the sanction of dismissal as a reasonable employer in the same circumstances might. For all the reason set out above I do not find the complaint well-founded.

For the reasons set out above I do not find the complaint well-founded.

 Fair and substantial grounds,  reasonable employer test,  balance of probabilities