ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00060809
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Salaha Rasool | Synergy Security Solutions |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Frank Walsh |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003) | CA-00073611-001 | 20/07/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 04/02/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 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.
I have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals and only broad reasons need be given. I am required to set out such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision per MacMenamin J. in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63.
The parties were put under notice of the decision in the Zalewski case, that their evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalty for perjury. Accordingly, the witnesses were advised of the penalty for perjury additionally, the parties were informed that they would be afforded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and the hearing was to be held in public; the parties offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private.
For the Complainant the hearing was attended by the Complainant as Litigant-in-person, and they gave evidence under affirmation and were made available for cross examination. No other witnesses were produced.
For the Respondent the hearing was attended by, Mr Fank Walsh and Mr Shahz Saeed, and they gave evidence under affirmation and were made available for cross exam. No other witnesses were produced.
Background:
CA-00073611 was received on 20/07/2025 in relation to Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003). The Complainant made their complaint in the following: “My current/new employer (Transferee) did not observe the terms and conditions transferred from my previous employer (Transferor).” The Respondent was properly on notice, and the complaint is made with the statute time frame. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant did not make a submission in advance of the hearing, and they cited no legislation other than the initial complaint form, nor any case law in support, at the hearing, nor the redress he was seeking in any detail. The fundamental argument of the Complainant was that the organisation had not completed the “transfer” in the correct manner where was not offered a role in the organisation taking over the contract for the security services for which he had been employed by the Complainant. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent was unsure the complaint related to them or to the undertaking organisation. The Respondent set out that the Complainant started as a new hire with the Respondent on the 04/07/2024 and his service ended on the 04/07/2025. The Respondent also sets out that it is not the correct Respondent in this matter they having complied with the provisions of the Regulations in as far as their obligations apply. It appears to the Respondent that the “Transferee” may not have complied with their obligations on the basis of legal advice they, the Transferee, had received. The Respondent sets out the following in their submissions: The complainant was employed by the Respondent as a security officer relating to the provision of security services at an Accommodation Centre. In May 2025, The Respondent was informed that its service contract at the site would not be renewed and that a new company Pastures New, would take over. The Respondent began the TUPE information and consultation process on 29/05/2025, issuing notices to all affected employees. The Complainant signed his TUPE consent form on 10/06/2025, permitting the transfer of his employment details to the new operator for the purpose of a potential transfer. During the transition period, the Respondent attempted to engage with the operator to coordinate transfer arrangements. Shortly afterwards, another company notified the Respondent that it was in discussions with the new operator to take over the contract. The Respondent sent requests to this entity seeking confirmation of their acceptance of the TUPE process, the transfer date, and compliance with consultation obligations. Legal correspondence was also issued by the Respondent solicitors emphasising the obligation of both the Respondent and any transferee to consult employees at least 30 days prior to transfer. In June 2025, Integrity Security, through its legal representatives, stated it would not be applying TUPE provisions, asserting that there was no transfer of assets or the transfer of the majority of the workforce, and therefore, in its view, no TUPE transfer occurred. This entity indicated it would commence services in June 2025 using its own staff, though it would consider offering employment opportunities to approximately 24 of the Respondent employees. As a result of the refusal by the new operators to apply the TUPE process, the Respondent maintained that it fulfilled all of its own obligations as transferor—issuing notices, consulting employees, and attempting engagement with the transferees. The Respondent states that the failure of the transferee companies to comply with TUPE requirements prevented the transition from occurring. The Respondent redeployed 52 of the 93 affected security officers to other sites, based on seniority and operational needs. 41 employees, including the Complainant, could not be accommodated due to the absence of suitable alternative positions. The complaint submitted by under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003, alleges that his “new employer” (transferee) did not honour the terms and conditions that should have transferred from the previous employer. The Respondent argues that because it was the transferor, and because TUPE rights can only be enforced against the transferee and they are not the “new employer” the complaint is incorrectly directed at the Respondent in this complaint. The Respondent concludes that it acted legally, ethically, and transparently, and that any failure in securing the transfer of employment can only be due solely to the actions of the identified transferees in Pastures New and/or Integrity Security. The Respondent cites J Donoghue Beverages Ltd v Collins (TUD183) in support of its position |
Findings and Conclusions:
It is not clear that a Transfer of Undertakings has taken place at all in relation to this complaint. However, I am satisfied from the submissions of the Respondent that they have met all of their obligations, if such a transfer had taken place, regardless of my own misgivings. I would note that the Respondent attempted to pursue the matter through their own solicitors to ensure a correct handover. It is the advice of the solicitor for Integrity that a transfer under the regulations does not apply. I am not tasked with considering that matter; given the complaint before is against the Respondent and not Integrity or Pastures New. The Respondent cites J Donoghue Beverages Ltd v Collins (TUD183) where the Labour Court upheld an Adjudication Officer's decision where they effectively set out that the liability for any alleged failure to comply with information and consultation obligations on the Transferee, rather than the Respondent in that case. For completeness the transferee is the new employer — the person or organisation that takes over the business, undertaking, or part of the undertaking to which the employees are assigned. I note that the argument of the Transferee, through their Solicitor to the Respondent, is that there is no transfer at all; I make no comment on that. It is clear from the complaint form “My current/new employer (Transferee) did not observe the terms and conditions transferred from my previous employer (Transferor)” For absolute clarity, the Respondent is the Transferor and the entity to which an undertaking is transferred is the Transferee i.e. the new employer. For the reasons set out above, I must find the complaint is misconceived and not well-founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the reasons set out above, I must find the complaint is misconceived and not well-founded. |
Dated: 13-02-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Dónal Moore, BL
Key Words:
Transferor, Transferee Liability, Bona Fide Attempt, Information and Consultation |