Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

Porter

Emergency Accommodation Provider

Representatives

Colin McGlynn CMG Consultants  

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

IR - SC - 00004721

11/07/2025

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 the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. However, this matter was not open to the Public as it involved an IR dispute.

I informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and where there is potential for a serious and/or direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint, then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that in circumstances where there was an employment complaint being heard alongside an industrial relations dispute, I have administered the said Affirmation as appropriate and in order that matters might progress. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The specific details of the dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 11th of July 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. In his complaint form, the Complainant set out his complaint as follows: -

I was employed as a porter at a hostel operated by the EM Group. Initially, I worked day shifts in a different property that accommodated refugees and people experiencing homelessness, including individuals with active substance use and criminal backgrounds. While I always treated residents with empathy and professionalism, the environment was highly demanding and emotionally intense.

Later, I was offered a transfer to another unit for night shifts. I accepted it because I was told the unit was a family-based refugee hostel, and that the environment would be calmer and more manageable. I was also told I would receive more working hours.

However, once transferred, I was instructed to carry out heavy cleaning tasks every night, including:

Deep-cleaning kitchens and bathrooms;

Scrubbing rubbish bins with detergent;

Cleaning fridges, ovens, corridors, staircases, handrails, staff toilets, and laundry areas;

Mopping and sweeping all floors;

Preparing breakfast.

These duties were formally listed on a night porter checklist given to me — duties clearly associated with a cleaning role, not a porter.

When I raised this with my line manager, she openly stated that I couldn’t spend the 12-hour night shift “just sitting in the office.” She acknowledged that it was quiet during the night and said that, for that reason, they expected me to spend at least 4 hours of my shift doing cleaning duties — that is, 16 hours per week. For comparison, the hostel’s actual cleaner only worked 20 hours per week, and her duties were limited to cleaning residents’ rooms. I was essentially complementing her job, doing the entire rest of the building — without being hired, paid, or trained for that role.

On 22 May 2025, I brought this concern directly to my manager. I printed the checklist, highlighted inappropriate tasks, and explained that I had not applied for a cleaner position. I had previously worked in another unit as a porter with no such responsibilities. I did not refuse to work — I simply questioned the breach of contract.

Instead of receiving understanding or a solution, I was increasingly targeted. My name began appearing in handwritten logbook reminders, making informal public demands for me to complete cleaning duties. This created an atmosphere of intimidation.

On 23 May 2025, I informed my manager via WhatsApp that I would not be fit to work the Sunday night shift (25 May). I complied with the company’s own 48-hour notice policy. I explained that I had a medical appointment scheduled for Monday — the first possible date due to my night shifts. Instead of showing concern, she immediately denied my request and wrote that if I failed to attend on Sunday, I would be in breach of contract and summoned to a disciplinary meeting the following week. This was a threat, made before I had a chance to present any medical certificate, and without asking about my health.

Later that day, I submitted a valid medical certificate covering 24–25 May, issued by my doctor. It was rejected without justification. The company responded that they would no longer accept certificates from my GP, citing vague concerns about credibility. However, they offered no occupational health referral or alternative solution — which they are legally required to do.

The environment I was in — working 12-hour night shifts alone in a building housing dozens of vulnerable people, while also being pressured to act as a cleaner — severely impacted my mental health. I had already been in treatment for depression for over a year, and this situation caused a relapse with acute anxiety symptoms directly related to work.

I was advised by my doctor and the Citizens Information Centre not to attend any disciplinary proceedings while medically unfit. I provided additional medical certificates, followed all procedures, and maintained respectful communication throughout.

Nonetheless, the company continued to pursue disciplinary action. They rescheduled the meeting multiple times, and ultimately proceeded with the final meeting on 24 June, despite knowing I was still on medical leave and had explained I could not attend. I later received meeting notes in which none of my health concerns, medical certificates, or the background of my situation were acknowledged.

It is important to state: I could have chosen to leave the job voluntarily due to dissatisfaction. But I didn’t. I was medically unfit to continue and was trapped in a toxic situation where I was being pushed beyond my role, punished for seeking help, and dismissed without fairness.

The company’s actions amount to:

Unfair Dismissal: I was let go during medically certified leave, without proper justification.

Breach of Contract: I was expected to perform a different job without written notice or agreement.

Discrimination based on medical condition: My mental health status was dismissed, and my doctor was discredited.

Constructive Dismissal: The environment became so hostile that my withdrawal was inevitable.

I am now unemployed and recovering. I respectfully request that the WRC consider the emotional, professional, and procedural violations involved in my case. I will submit supporting documentation by post, including:

WhatsApp messages from my line manager;

The cleaning checklist and duty logbook photos;

Medical certificates;

Emails regarding disciplinary meetings;

Final meeting notes that ignore my health status.

Thank you for your time and attention.

The Complainant sent in additional documentation at the time that he issued his workplace relations complaint form. A further and lengthier submission with documents attached was then delivered on or about the 27th of March 2026.

None of the of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case was objected to by the Respondent. The oral evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative.

The Complainant alleges that he was unfairly dismissed in circumstances where he had less than 12 months of service.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated. 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 legal representation at this hearing. To assist in explaining how this particular workplace operated, a number of witnesses gave evidence. This evidence was given on affirmation. This included the Complainant’s line Manager (and day Porter) JE and the HR Officer – GH. The Respondent provided me with a comprehensive written submissions dated March 2026. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. The Respondent witnesses were questioned by the Complainant.

The Respondent rejects that there has been an unfair dismissal and asserts that the Complainant was terminated for cause on foot of a Disciplinary process.

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 considered the evidence adduced over two days of evidence. I was not satisfied at the end of the first day of evidence that the Respondent had provided me with enough information and it was agreed that the Respondent would re-submit some paperwork, bring in a porter/Manager to outline the duties and provide me with duty checklists for the purpose of allowing me to draw comparisons. The evidence of JE was very helpful.

The Complainant gave his evidence on affirmation, and it seems that he was engaged as a Porter for minimum wage by the EM Group. As I understand it, the EM Group owns and operates a number of premises in the State wherein emergency accommodation is provided. The State seemingly subsidises the housing of asylum seekers, Ukrainian Refugees, as well as other people needing somewhere to live or stay by reason of unforeseen circumstances. The different centres for the provision of these services are owned and operated by the EM Group, albeit that each centre seemingly operates under a different company name. I do not need to understand or look behind the corporate set up other than to say that I am finding that the Complainant has had one Employer for the purpose of service, and that the company W Limited was his Employer at the end of his employment.

The Employment started in early February of 2025, and the first employment was in a housing premises in F Street where the Complainant was doing day shifts which he enjoyed.

The Contract of Employment states that the Complainant was engaged as a Porter and it is fair to say that the Contract of Employment is absolutely silent on what a Porter is and what the porter duties are in the context of this type of building/facility. Ultimately it seems the Employer and the Employee had very different interpretations. I have no idea what was advertised, and what would be considered normal for a Porter job. Also, no attempt has been made by the parties to determine if there is a distinction to be drawn between the duties of a day porter and those of a night porter – and if any distinction was made known to Employees.

It seems to me that a porter in an accommodation centre (such as a hostel, hotel, residential centre, or reception/accommodation centre) typically carries out a mix of practical, support, and safety-related duties to help the centre run smoothly. Ultimately, the exact tasks can vary by setting and bespoke arrangements made to fit in with the local requirements.

The Complainant commenced his employment as a day Porter which he enjoyed and was relaxed with. He said he could even study a bit as he was a student. However, ultimately, he wasn’t getting enough hours, and he said he asked whether he could have more shifts or hours at which time he was offered to work as a night Porter.

The Complainant says he was persuaded to take on this night porter employment, and he made out that this was some form of enticement. He was told that the work available was at a different premises. The Complainant commenced this employment at the new premises on the 22nd of April 2025. The Complainant was advised that he would be working twelve-hour shifts – 8pm to 8am.

He was surprised that when he moved premises that his Employer seemingly changed his Employer title (giving a new company name) albeit without notification and without being told there was a change in Employer. To my mind the Complainant transferred seamlessly between two operations owned and run by the same group and his service was therefore on a continuum.

At the hearing, the Respondent attempted to make the case that there was no employment continuum and therefore the Complainant’s employment lasted only from the commencement date of the 22nd of April and not the earlier February date.  I rejected this.

The Complainant says that he only had a few hours training when he commenced his employment on the second site on D Street. I am advised that the new place of work is described as a family hub meaning that there are different family units on the premises and that the setup is, of necessity, quite different to the one at the previous premises wherein the Complainant worked where the accommodation was given on an individual basis.

I accept the evidence from the Employer that the family hub aims to provide, as far as is practicable, some element of family life. In this instance a large kitchen/living area is provided so that families might be able to cook and eat together. This seems a reasonable accommodation to give families in a time of difficulty.

However, the knock on from this is that the night and day Porters are expected to oversee the day-to-day clean-up of the premises as part of their duties. The way the Dorset Street property is run, all tenants have to be out of the kitchen by 11pm at which point whichever night Porter is on duty must go in and clean up the kitchen and desterilise the kitchen in preparation for breakfast the next day. In addition to this task the night Porter is also expected to conduct a general clean, wash and sweep of the communal areas of hall, stairs and landings. The Complainant was not used to this level of cleaning work being attached to the job of being a Porter. 

I accept that the Complainant undoubtedly felt he was getting too much additional work including deep cleaning tasks, heavy duty tasks and unsavoury tasks such as cleaning toilets.

The Complainant did carry out this work for a period of about one month though he was clearly unhappy doing it and was called out (through a staff notebook) several times by his line Manager for not getting tasks done. These criticisms were seen by all the staff.

He was very unhappy and he felt this was a fundamental change in the nature of his employment which was not notified to him. The Respondent maintains that the Complainant knew or ought to have known that these tasks were duties which befell all their nighttime Porters across the group. I am, on balance, not satisfied that the extent of it was explained to the Complainant on the training day provided.

I note that on or about the 16th of May 2025, that the Complainant reached out to his line Manager to explain that he was not adapting well to the nighttime shifts and that he was exhausted as he could not sleep in the daytime when he got home. The Line Manager gave evidence that she told him he would get used to it, and that they valued his experience and that she agreed that she would talk to her own boss S about possibly returning him to daytime shifts should an opening come up. I accept no promise was made.

Things unexpectedly came to a head a few days later when he and his line manage fell out over the 22nd /23rd of May 2025. As noted, I had asked that the Line Manager be brought in as I wanted to hear her version of events. This was very helpful to me.

I accept that on the 22nd of May the Complainant flagged with his Line Manger that he was not happy with the amount of work he was expected to do in the twelve-hour shift. The Complainant explained to JE that he had done four solid hours of cleaning the night before. JE explained that this was the expectation in a twelve-hour shift and that she herself had often worked the nightshift and was familiar with the workload and felt it was not unreasonable. The Complainant is making the case that he was in effect hoodwinked into signing up for the nightshift without being told that there would actually be work to be done, and that it was not just a twelve-hour job sitting at a desk.

At the end of that conversation, I accept that the Complainant made it absolutely clear that he was not happy and that he had not signed up for a cleaner’s job. The Complainant also made it clear that he was going to be looking for another job. JE says that she asked him to keep her notified as she would need to replace him.

On the afternoon of the next day (Friday May 23rd), the Complainant contacted JE to say he would not be in a position to work the overnight shift on the night of Sunday the 25th/26th as he had an appointment on the Monday morning. It was not clear what sort of appointment this was. JE pushed back on this request as she had very limited replacement capacity and rosters are handed out four weeks in advance. Later that same day the Complainant contacted JE to say he was now not in a position to do the night shift on the Saturday 24th/25th either. It was at this point that the Complainant submitted a medical note indicating that he was unavailable for the 24th and 25th of May due to a medical condition.

In fact, the Complainant never returned to the workplace and instead submitted medical certs which expired on the 20th of June 2025. No further certificate was submitted. By now the certs were stating that the absences were due to anxiety and work-related stress. Despite this, the Employer opted to proceed with a disciplinary process which it says was triggered by the non-attendance of the Complainant over the weekend of the 24th and 25th of May.

A full disciplinary meeting was conducted in the absence of the Complainant on the 24th of June. It is noted that the Complainant was not on certified sick leave on this date and was simply absent.This contradicts the assertion set out in the complaint form wherein the Complainant had said:

ultimately proceeded with the final meeting on 24 June, despite knowing I was still on medical leave and had explained I could not attend 

I am satisfied that JE gave a fair and precise account of her interaction with the Complainant and which interaction had given rise to this disciplinary process. I note that the Complainant was fully aware that this meeting was being held, and he expressly stated in an email:

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend the meeting tomorrow. I’ll be looking forward to hearing about the outcome.

Best regards,

LF

The tone of this communication is important. To my mind the Complainant gave permission for this meeting to proceed in his absence. The Complainant did not seek to postpone the meeting and did not seek to submit a medical report from a new or even the original medical advisor. The Complainant allowed this meeting to proceed in his absence. The Complainant was on notice that a Disciplinary process concerning his behaviour was underway.

In consequence of the foregoing the Complainant found himself dismissed for having failed to get through the probation period and he was dismissed while on probation and had utterly failed to engage. The letter of dismissal read as follows:

We scheduled a performance review meeting on Tuesday 24th June 2025 to discuss concerns that had arisen during your probation. You did not attend this meeting and no explanation or supporting medical certification has been provided to account for your absence. As discussed with you previously, a number of issues have been identified during your probationary period, including:

• Failure to perform key duties as outlined in your job description;

• Refusal to carry out reasonable instructions and assigned tasks;

• Concerns relating to conduct during night shifts; and

• Presentation of a self-altered job checklist, in which you unilaterally excluded certain duties from your role.

Despite our efforts to address these matters informally and provide an opportunity for discussion, we have not seen sufficient improvement in performance or engagement. In light of these concerns and your non-attendance at the scheduled review meeting without explanation, we have concluded that you are not suitable for the role. Accordingly, we are terminating your employment with effect from 26/06/2025, in line with the terms of your probation. You will be paid all wages due up to your termination date, including any accrued but untaken statutory annual leave.

There is an obligation on the parties to an IR dispute to demonstrate that they have engaged locally in a good faith process of resolution before presenting any matter to the WRC. The WRC should be seen as the last port of call. Not the first. There is, therefore, an expectation that parties will have exhausted the workplace mechanisms for bringing a grievance or a complaint. By extension, I am of the view that an Employee is obliged as far as might be reasonable to engage in a Disciplinary process which has been initiated. An Employee ignores and/or walks away from a Disciplinary process at their peril.

I am of the view that the obligation to address a workplace dispute internally before escalating it to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) is based on several important legal, procedural, and practical reasons. The contractual relationship between the Employer and the Employee will usually have internal grievance/disciplinary procedures embedded into the contract of employment. The procedures adopted by a workplace are presumed to be optimum for the particular workplace and therefore should be utilised. Resolving a dispute internally saves on time and resources for both the employer and the employee and should reduce the cost of legal representation and administrative overhead. It is hoped that resolving issues in-house helps to maintain ongoing working relationships. Using the internal procedures encourages employer responsibility and accountability in the workplace. The employer is held accountable for maintaining fair procedures, whilst the employee is expected to engage constructively. Grievance procedures and other internal mechanisms thrive on problem-solving and dialogue.

Going through internal steps creates a paper trail of efforts made to resolve the issue and helps the WRC or the Adjudicator to assess the reasonableness of both parties’ actions.

Any subsequent oversight which the WRC may have is designed to be complementary to the internal mechanisms and not a substitute for them. The WRC may decline jurisdiction if it is not satisfied that an employee has attempted to resolve issues locally and/or has given no evidence of using the grievance procedure.

This Disciplinary process was not engaged with and was not challenged by the Complainant.