Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Shoaib  Afghan

OCS One Complete Solution Ltd

Representatives

Hannah Rowe

IBEC                                              

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00072672-001

22/06/2025

This hearing was 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 conducted in recognition of the fact that these proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

In line with the coming into effect of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 on the 29th of July 2021, I can confirm that the witnesses herein were required to give their evidence on oath or affirmation. This was done in anticipation of the fact that there may have been a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to the complaint. It is noted that the giving of a false statement or evidence is an offence.

The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 22nd of June 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date. The cognisable period is from the 23rd of December 2024 to the 22nd of June 2025.

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant provided supporting documents when he first issued his complaint form. 

The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which read as follows: 

My name is Shoaib Afghan, and I was employed as a security officer with OCS Security at Tesco/s, located in Dublin, Ireland. I was a student in Dublin Business School since April 2024 until April 2025. I was totally disturbed in life here due to the below incident and the mistreatment by OCS. I was not in a normal mental state after the incident, and after OCS removed me from my position without support, defending only themselves, I lost all stability. Now I have full refugee status in the State, and I thank the Irish authorities for giving me the energy and courage to submit this case now.

I am writing to formally submit a complaint regarding a deeply distressing incident that occurred during my shift at Tesco Express on Townsend Street on 29th September 2024, and my subsequent termination on 14th December 2024.

My shift duration was from 08:00 AM to 10:00 PM. During that day, I faced a situation that involved discriminatory remarks, harassment based on my religion, culture, and family, and defamation while I was fulfilling my duties very honestly and diligently as a security guard.

At approximately 07:30 PM, I was subjected to highly inappropriate and offensive behaviour from a Tesco employee named Richi. After I congratulated him on what I believed was a recent or upcoming marriage, he responded with a deeply disrespectful comment: “I am marrying your mother.” This remark directly targeted my cultural and religious values, and it was humiliating.

I expressed that his comment was more painful than being physically harmed. Instead of backing down, Richi repeated: “I am married with your mother.” This second comment was deliberate and mocking. It was clear this was not a misunderstanding, it was targeted, cruel, and calculated to humiliate me.

I attempted to address the situation, but my distress was mocked. Dean, the supervisor on duty, along with Josh and Sean, laughed at me for two hours until closing. This behaviour is likely visible on CCTV. They even shared the incident with customers, who joined in mocking me. Staff showed no empathy or support.

I reported the incident to OCS managers Michael and Marius after leaving at 10:00 PM. The next day, Marius met me outside Tesco Talbot Street and, in his car, told me that I was “alone”, that the others were Irish and I would have no support. He told me I should remain silent, and said, “You are one, and they are four.”

Despite acknowledging that they believed me, Michael and Marius told me the others were “anti” me and that my case would be difficult to prove. I reminded them all I could do to report it to you but they did not act.

I continued requesting help and asked to be moved or supported. I was emotionally broken and could not interact normally with staff or customers. On 4th November at Tesco Prussia Street, during a 14-hour shift with only one break, I leaned briefly on a railing due to kidney pain. The store manager Mike photographed me and shared the images with Marius, who texted me at 4:39 PM saying “don’t lean, stand straight.” This further broke my confidence. I texted Marius asking why my photo was taken without my knowledge and told him I was struggling.

I requested shorter shifts of 8–10 hours but was denied.

On 18 November, I was again placed on a long shift during extremely cold conditions. Mike asked me to watch two suspicious women. I was already physically cold and emotionally unstable. The women were mixing outside goods with store items. I politely asked them about the mix, and they shouted at me. After this, I received constant calls and emails alleging I had wrongly stopped two women.

A probationary meeting was called, and Michael did not allow me to fully explain myself. My contract was then terminated on 14 December 2024.

After a few months, I respectfully contacted OCS again and requested any opportunity to work, explaining I was jobless and struggling. My request was ignored.

I was left to cope with the emotional and psychological trauma entirely on my own. I remained unemployed for months—not by choice, but because I had neither the physical energy nor the mental strength to move forward. I lost the confidence to speak to others, to apply for jobs, or even to function in daily life. The humiliation I experienced was profound, and it shattered my trust in my colleagues, my workplace, and the very systems that were meant to protect me.

Before this, I was recognised as a reliable, professional security officer. Since the incident, however, I have found it extremely difficult to perform. The emotional burden has affected my concentration, health, confidence, and even my personal life. I no longer feel welcome in my environment, and I constantly feel like an outsider.

Professionally, I am a qualified civil engineer with a Master’s degree in Project Management. I have proudly served with Save the Children International, working to protect the rights of women and children. But since this incident, and the lack of response and fairness that followed, I have felt weak, voiceless, and without purpose.

I have suffered sleep problems, anxiety, and physical health issues. I now question whether seeking protection in Ireland was the right decision. The psychological burden has been immense, and I still carry it.

Conclusion:

The harassment I experienced on 29th September 2024, the lack of support from colleagues and management, and my eventual dismissal, all without proper action from OCS, have had a long-lasting, damaging impact on my mental and emotional well-being.

I respectfully request that the Workplace Relations Commission investigate this matter, as it involves discrimination, harassment, and neglect of duty of care by OCS Security and Tesco. I believe accountability is necessary so no one else faces what I have endured.

Thank you for taking the time to hear my voice.

The Complainant, therefore, is making  the case that he has been discriminated against on the grounds of his Race and Religion.

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 a Prima Facie case that a Discrimination has happened. This amounts to the Prima Facie obligation on the Complainant from which a presumption of unlawful discrimination can be inferred. The onus thereafter shifts to the Respondent to prove that there is no infringement of the principle of equal treatment in the workplace.

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. 

The Respondent had full representation at the hearing as the Respondent was represented by the business representative group known as IBEC.

The Respondent provided me with a comprehensive written submission received by the WRC on the 8th of June 2026.

I have additionally heard from a witness for the Respondent – Vincent Galvin the Key Account Manager. I also heard from Natalie McGrath Head of HR. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation. The Respondent witness was questioned by the Complainant.

The Respondent rejects that there has been any acts of Discrimination in this workplace and has further requested that I deal with a preliminary issue set out as follows:

In his WRC claim form the Complainant alleges that he was discriminated against and cited 29 September 2024 as the most recent date of discrimination. The Complainant submitted his claim to the WRC on 22 June 2025, which is 8 months and 24 days after the alleged date of discrimination. Therefore, the Respondent respectfully submits that the Adjudication Officer does not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint as the matter is out of time, and therefore is statute barred.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provides: “Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates”.

Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 provides that the six-month time limit should apply and that it can only be extended due to ‘’reasonable cause’’.

It is respectfully submitted that the complaint before you is out of time, and no case for extension has been presented. It is clear that the Complainant has not submitted his claim within the period of six months, beginning on the date of the alleged contravention, and that the matter is statute barred.

It is well established, both within the legislation and by the Labour Court that the date of contravention runs from the date of the alleged contravention only.  Constructive Dismissal and does not accept any contravention of Employment Rights as protected by statute.

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.

I have carefully listened to the parties herein. I did hear evidence concerning the employment and how the Complainant’s employment came to be terminated as a result of an incident which happened in November of 2024. This November 2024 incident and the termination of employment are unrelated to a previous incident in September of 2024 wherein a racial or religious slur was alleged to have been used/said. I was bound to deal with the Preliminary Issue raised by the Respondent in the first instance as it went to the heart of my jurisdiction to deal with the substantive matter of alleged discrimination contrary to the employment Acts. As noted, the cognisable period is from the 23rd of December 2024 to the 22nd of June 2025.

Legal time limits vary depending on the type of claim (contract, tort, personal injury, etc.), and they help balance the rights of individuals to pursue legal remedies with the need for fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.

It must be understood that limiting the time frame within which a complaint can be made serves several important legal purposes including the need to provide legal certainty, encouraging timely resolution, preventing the bringing of stale claims and generally encouraging efficiencies in the dispute resolution process. There is a clear requirement that Complainants come forward quickly, while memories are fresh and to avoid uncertainty. I explained this to the Complainant.

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.”

In limited circumstances, a complaint presented outside the relevant period may be entertained if the failure to present was due to reasonable cause. This will not exceed a twelve-month period.

The Complainant herein issued a workplace relations complaint form on the 22nd of June 2025 some eight or nine months after an incident (described in the complaint form as having happened in September of 2024) occurred and which he said was discriminatory in nature. To allow me to consider this complaint, the Complainant had to provide evidence which would establish that the failure to present the complaint within six months was due to reasonable cause.

The Labour Court, in the case of Cementation Skanska v Carroll DWT0338 28/10/2003, considered the issue of “reasonable cause” albeit in the context of a similar provision to S.41(8) contained in the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 Section 27(5):

“Not withstanding subsection (4) a Rights Commissioner may entertain a complaint under this section presented to him or her after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (4) (but not later than 12 months of such expiration) if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint within that period was due to reasonable cause”

In expanding on what is meant by reasonable cause the Labour Court stated:

“It is the Court’s view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford and excuse for the delay.  The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not irrational or absurd.  In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time.  The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon.  Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time.”

The Complainant presented evidence that he was extremely upset that the remarks had been made and that he had always intended bringing a complaint. He said that the WRC website did not work for him. The Complainant had to agree (when questioned by the IBEC representative) that he only ever raised the issue in the workplace after two months and when a disciplinary issue had arisen which ultimately lead to the termination of his employment. Nothing the Complainant said tended to suggest that there was any actual reason which both explained the delay and excused the delay. 

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

CA-00072672-001 – The complaint herein was brough to the attention of the WRC long after the expiration of the six-month period immediately after the incident being complained of. I do not have jurisdiction to proceed to hear this matter and the complaint fails.