Complainant

Respondent

Parties

David  Bell

Aos Security Management Solutions Limited (Amended on Consent)

Representatives

Self-Representative

 Jan Harte & Associates

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00072508-001

11/06/2025

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

CA-00072508-002

11/06/2025

The Complainant represented himself. He attended on the first date, 3 December 2025, and gave evidence on Affirmation. However, there was no appearance by him on the second hearing date, 18 March 2026.

Jess O'Sullivan of the Respondent and Bill Brown, witness, appeared for the Respondent and gave evidence on Affirmation. The Respondent was presented by Jan Harte.

The name of the Respondent was amended at the outset, Aos Security Management Solutions Limited.

Submissions and documentary evidence were filed and relied upon by both parties.

The Complainant referred to two complaints: the first complaint related to the minimum rate of pay set out in an Employment Regulation Order and the second, was a complaint that he did not receive the terms and conditions laid down by an Employment Regulations Order (“ERO”).

The Respondent objected to the complaint being heard by an adjudicator on the basis that the ERO relied upon by the Complainant did not apply to the Complainant's employment.

The Respondent submitted that the Security Sector ERO, which came into effect in July 2024, applied only to employees working in the Guarding sector who held a valid Guarding Licence. While the ERO provided for unsocial hours shift allowance for employees covered by it, the Respondent maintained that the Complainant was not entitled to this allowance because the Complainant was employed exclusively within the events sector.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant was never employed in the Guarding sector and therefore fell outside the scope of the ERO. The Respondent further stated that, when the Complainant requested payment of the unsocial hours shift allowance, it explained that the allowance was not payable because the ERO did not apply to the Complainant's role.

The Complainant attended and presented evidence on 3 December 2025. The hearing was adjourned to allow the Respondent file its submission on the ERO. Time thereafter was given to the Complainant to file replying to submissions. Both sets of submissions were filed and shared with the other party.

The parties were subsequently notified of the second hearing date on 18 March 2026. I am satisfied that the parties were notified of the hearing date accordingly.

On the hearing date, several attempts were made to try and contact the Complainant. After waiting a reasonable time period there was still no appearance by the Complainant.

On that basis the Respondent sought to dismiss the complaints but, in the alternative, presented its evidence.  

In the absence of Complainant and the Respondent’s undisputed evidence that the ERO (Security Industry Joint Labour Committee) 2024 does not apply to the Complainant.

CA-00072508-001

I find the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00072508-002

I find the complaint is not well founded.