ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058389
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Noureldin Abdelgawwad | Al Maktoum Foundation CLG |
Representatives |
|
|
Complaints:
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-00070904-001 | 17/04/2025 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00070904-002 | 17/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/04/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 8 (1)(a) of the Unfair Dismissals Act of 1977 (as substituted) and where a claim for redress under the Unfair Dismissals legislation is being made, the claim is referred to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission who in turn refers any such claim to an Adjudication Officer, so appointed, for the purpose of having the said claim heard in the manner prescribed in Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and in particular the said Adjudication Officer is obliged to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint made. The Adjudication Officer will additionally and where appropriate hear all relevant oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and will consider any and all documentary or other evidence which may be tendered in the course of the hearing.
The Complainant’s complaint is that he was constructively dismissed which means that the onus is on the Complainant to demonstrate that his Employer’s conduct or behaviour was such that he had no reasonable alternative other than to tender his resignation. The burden of proof is said to shift to the Complainant in a situation of constructive dismissal. The Complainant must demonstrate that he was forced to terminate her contract of employment in circumstances which, because of the conduct of the Employer, the Employee/Complainant was entitled to terminate his employment, or it was reasonable for the Employee to terminate her employment (as defined in Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1997).
It is well established that there are two tests for constructive dismissal in the statutory definition provided. Either one of these tests can be invoked by the Employee.
The first is the contract test where an employee will argue an entitlement to terminate the contract of employment because of a fundamental breach of the employment contract on the part of the Employer. The breach must be a significant breach going to the root of the employment contract.
Secondly, the Employee may allege that he satisfies the 1977 Act’s “reasonableness”test. That is that the conduct of the Employer was such that it was reasonable for him to resign. That is to say that the Employer has conducted its affairs so unreasonably that the Employee cannot be expected to put up with the situation any longer and is justified in leaving. The test is objective. The test requires that the conduct of both Employer and Employee be considered. The conduct of the parties as a whole and the cumulative effect must be looked at. The conduct of the Employer that is being complained of must be unreasonable and without proper cause, and its effect on the Employee must be judged objectively, reasonably and sensibly in order to determine if it is such that the Employee cannot be expected to put up with it.
In this particular instance, and in circumstances where the Complainant herein has referred a complaint of having been unfairly dismissed from his place of employment (by reason of constructive dismissal) wherein he had worked for in excess of one year and where the Workplace Relations Complaint Form (dated the 17th of April 2025) issued within six months of the constructive dismissal, I am satisfied that I (an Adjudication Officer so appointed) have jurisdiction to hear the within matter.
In a case of Constructive Dismissal, there is a generally accepted proposition that the Employee should engage and exhaust internal mechanisms which might be available in a given workplace before tendering a resignation. I would always have regard for the seminal Employment Appeals Tribunal case of UD 474/1981 Margot Conway -v- Ulster Bank Limited wherein the Tribunal stated:
“The Tribunal considers that the Appellant did not act reasonably in resigning without first having substantially utilized the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints. An elaborate grievance procedure existed but the Appellant did not use it. It is not for the Tribunal to say whether using this procedure would have produced a decision more favourable to her, but it is possible.”
Lastly, where an Employee has been dismissed and the dismissal is found to be unfair the employee shall be entitled to redress pursuant to Section 7 of the 1977 Act. Such redress might include re-instatement, re-engagement or compensation for any financial loss attributable to the dismissal where compensation for such loss does not exceed 104 weeks remuneration. The acts, omissions and conduct of both parties will be taken into account when considering the extent of the financial loss and there is an onus on a Complainant to adopt measures to mitigate the loss.
In addition to the above, the Complainant has brought a complaint of a contravention of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 which is an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 and where such a complaint is presented the Director General is empowered to refer that complaint forward for adjudication to the Adjudication Officer aforesaid.
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by an employee of a complaint of a contravention by an employer of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015, the Director General of the WRC may make a referral of said matter to the Adjudication Services.
A complaint of a contravention of Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991, that is, a complaint of an unlawful deduction having been made from the Employee’s wage. Section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act provides that an employer must pay wages that are properly payable to an employee. Pursuant to Section 6 of the said 1991 Act, and in circumstances where the Adjudicator finds that the complaint of a contravention of Section 5 aforesaid is deemed to be well founded, then the Adjudicator can direct that the employer pay to the employee an amount which is subject to the limits set out in Section 6 of the 1991 Payment of Wages Act 1991.
Background:
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. 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 witness herein gave an honest account of his evidence which was, in any event, uncontradicted as the Respondent did not attend. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. The Complainant gave his own evidence concerning the issues which have brought the Complainant before the WRC. I was provided with a comprehensive submission which were sent to the WRC on the 28th of April 2026. Before this date the Complainant had sent in numerous documents together with the complaint form. The complaint form – dated the 17th of April 2025- reads as follows: I commenced employment with the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland (ICCI) in 2012 and was promoted to Deputy Principal of the Qur’anic School in July 2022. I served in this role with full commitment to educational leadership, safeguarding, and community welfare until my resignation on 9 April 2025, which I submitted due to severe breaches of trust, professional interference, mistreatment, and a complete breakdown in the employer-employee relationship. I was never subjected to disciplinary hearings, verbal or written warnings, or any internal grievance process. No fair procedures were ever made available or offered to me. The following is a summary of the events that led to my resignation: Sept–Oct 2024: ICCI withheld my salary without justification. I was later informed that the school’s income had been diverted to other uses. Late 2024: New financial rules were imposed on my department, banning cash handling. However, I later confirmed that other ICCI departments continued to operate using cash. 11 Jan 2025: ICCI falsely claimed ownership of the school system I had developed independently outside working hours. 13 Feb 2025: I submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) under GDPR. ICCI did not respond. 22 Feb 2025 (Saturday): I met Zahid Jamil (ICCI board) privately after he had met the school principal with CEO Ahmed Hasain. 24 Feb 2025 (Monday): ICCI board representatives held a mandatory meeting with teachers on their day off. The meeting was unprofessional and intimidating. Zahid Jamil refused to face male staff, addressed only female teachers, and dismissed questions from the team. 25 Feb 2025: Summayah was appointed to a new senior role without process. March 2025: ICCI repeatedly pressured me to hand over access to student data. I explained this would breach GDPR. The CEO responded with unprofessional tone and threatened consequences. March 2025: CEO accused me and the Principal of obstructing ICCI operations and questioned our character in written emails. Throughout this period, I received WhatsApp messages during my days off, despite having requested professional communication via email. Early April 2025: The school was formally registered independently. I remained in post, continuing school operations. 9 April 2025: I resigned due to continued mistreatment, hostile working conditions, and ICCI’s refusal to engage in any fair or lawful process. Post-Resignation Retaliation: 12 April 2025: ICCI locked the school office without notice. Important records and safeguarding information were left inaccessible. 13 April 2025: ICCI deployed security guards at the school gates and distributed printed letters to parents stating the school was cancelled—without any consultation with school staff. This caused unnecessary distress to children and families. 14 April 2025 (5:00 a.m.): ICCI revoked access to all school-related email accounts, including my own, unlawfully accessing confidential data including child information, parent complaints, and sensitive staff correspondence. Following this, ICCI sent misleading communication to Gardaí and claimed I had no right to be on site.
No Procedures or Fair Process At no point was I informed of grievance or disciplinary procedures. I received no investigation, no meeting, no warnings, and no appeal process. I was given no opportunity to defend myself or raise my concerns through a formal mechanism. Legal Concerns – The employer's actions breached my rights under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977–2015. – GDPR rights were disregarded. – My intellectual property rights were threatened through false claims of ownership of systems I created entirely outside work. – The pattern of behaviour amounted to bullying, intimidation, and a toxic work environment. – Over 30 teachers resigned during the same period due to similar treatment. I was never given a copy of any grievance or disciplinary procedures at any time, including at the commencement of employment or at any stage before or after my resignation. I respectfully request that the Workplace Relations Commission acknowledge this complaint as a case of constructive dismissal and award redress accordingly. I am submitting additional supporting documentation by secure upload and/or post, including resignation letter, correspondence with ICCI management, SAR request, WhatsApp message transcripts, and evidence of retaliatory actions taken post-resignation. The Complainant alleges that he was Unfairly dismissed by way of constructive dismissal. 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 facts which tend to disclose that there is a reasonable cause of action or that there appears to have been a contravention of a Statute or Statutes. 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. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent was notified of the date, time and venue for this hearing by a letter sent from the WRC - dated the 9th of March 2026 - and posted to the address of the Respondent entity situate at 19 Roebuck Road in Clonskeagh which is the address provided as the official and registered address. No reason was given for non-attendance. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the Respondent and the hearing lasted the best part of two hours with no communication received in that period.
|
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered the evidence adduced by the Complainant herein. The Complainant described the school wherein he was working as a supplemental school and I understand that an Islamic supplemental school offers a range of educational opportunities for Muslim children and adults. These schools provide a comprehensive curriculum that includes Islamic studies, Qur’anic education and Arabic language learning. They aim to nurture the students’ faith values and cultural identity as part of a quality education. The Complainant very proudly rose to the role of Deputy Principal in the Nuru Huda Qur’anic school operated by the Respondent. The Complainant had commenced his full-time employment in 2012. He had been casual before that. By 2025, the Complainant was on a basic salary of circa €47,000.00 per annum engaged in a full-time capacity. Without understanding the specifics of what has been happening in the Islamic Cultural centre of Ireland (wherein the Respondent entity sits), I am aware that there has been a rupture which very publicly came to a head in and around April of 2024. Before this, the Complainant explained that a new Board of Management had been put in place in the aftermath of the death of the founder. The Board’s representative on the ground in Ireland was the CEO. The Complainant stated that he began to notice changes in the workplace from in and around September of 2024. The first thing was the lengthy delays in getting paid which happened in both September and October of 2024. Thereafter the Complainant says that he came under pressure to release and provide the names and addresses of all the students and their families to the Board. It is noted that most of the Board members reside in the UAE. The CEO was looking for this Data on behalf of the Board. The Complainant was wary of releasing any such Data and pushed back on this request. In December of 2024 the CEO directed that the educational committee was to be dissolved without giving any reason for this diktat. On January 11th 2025 the CEO demanded that the Complainant hand over the information contained in the school’s database system. The entitlement to such information was outlined as follows: While concerns related to property ownership rights and GDPR compliance have been raised previously, I would like to clarify the following points: 1. The system was developed for the school during your tenure as a paid employee and is integral to its operations. 2. The Organisation, as the legal entity owning and managing the school, is fully entitled to access both the system and its contents to ensure transparency and the seamless operation of its services. That is to say that the argument regarding the property ownership of the database system itself lacks full validity, however, we will not delve into this further at this stage. Our immediate priority is to obtain an accurate and up to-date database contents to address the Organisation's operational requirements effectively. The communication – which appeared as a WhatsApp message - goes on to state: Data Required We kindly request the following information to be provided in full: 1. Student Information: Names, dates of birth, and student ID numbers (if available). 2. Class Details: Class names/numbers, teacher assignments, and branch/location information. 3. Parent Contact Details: Full names, phone numbers, and email addresses. 4. Fee Records: Comprehensive details of payments (both paid and outstanding) for the current academic year. The requested data should be exported in either Excel or CSV format for ease of use. I understand that the Complainant continued to resist the sharing of this information and was backed up by the Principal in this regard. The Complainant wrote to parents looking for consent which seemingly annoyed the CEO and Board. Later on, on the 23rd of January 2025 the CEO directed that all school Fees had to be paid into the school bank account. This appears to have arisen out of issues of cash payments though the Complainant provide an explanation for this as follows: During my time working under ICCI, all tuition fees collected from parents were either lodged directly to ICCI's account or used-where necessary-to pay for school-related operational expenses such as printing, learning materials, or basic maintenance. For many years, this system worked on the understanding that receipts of expenses would be submitted to ICCI, and then the amounts reimbursed and lodged with supporting lists of guardian payments. However, in 2024, ICCI advised us not to submit receipts due to their financial difficulties and told us to hold the documents until they were ready to process them. As a result, while there are receipt copies issued to parents showing the amounts paid, these same amounts may not yet appear on the official lodgement lists held by ICCI. This does not reflect any misuse, but rather a delay in the standard reconciliation process due to ICCI's own instructions. In addition, a portion of the original receipts and safeguarding documents remain inside the school office, which ICCI locked without notice on 12 April 2025. We have been denied access since, making it impossible to provide the remaining receipts, expense proof, and reconciliation documents. I am concerned that the employer may attempt to misrepresent this situation as financial misconduct, which would be entirely unfounded. The record is clear, and my team acted transparently and in accordance with ICCI's instructions at all times The Complainant wrote back to the CEO on or about the 23rd of January and was critical of the tone and structure of the email received. The language used was unnecessarily accusatory, he said, and reads as if it is directed at a team of individuals with a history of misconduct. By the end of February 2025 the Complainant’s access (as overall administrator) to the teacher’s electronic accounts was withdrawn. This was done without consultation with the complainant and without the knowledge of the school principal. The Complainant specifically states that this is deliberate targeting and places him under undue pressure. The Complainant says that he had clearly become caught up in some power struggle which was happening in the wake of the death of the founder and the creation of the new Board. The Complainant doubted he had a future in the school and indeed doubted that there was a future for the school. This was compounded by another delay in receiving salaries in March of 2025. The Complainant tendered his resignation on the 9th of April 2025 as follows: On balance I am satisfied that the Complainant was justified in tendering his resignation at this time. There was a complete breakdown in trust as between the Complainant and the Board who had, through it’s intermediary operated to diminish and sideline the Complainant in pursuit of an unknown objective. It was not reasonable to expect the Complainant to continue working under these conditions after the best part of fourteen or fifteen years of service. I am further satisfied that even though the Complainant did not specifically trigger a grievance process, there can be no doubt that the many emails/communications sent by the Complainant highlighted the many grievances which the Complainant had in terms of his treatment by his Employer. I note that the Complainant has moved on to serve with another supplemental school operating in Portlaoise though his work there is only part time earning about €13,000.00 per annum. It is to be hoped that the Complainant is able to work full-time and supplement this drastically reduced income in due course. Regarding the Payment of Wages claim I note that here was an outstanding sum of €1,000.00 to be paid to the Complainant for his work over the holy month. This claim is uncontested. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 CA-00070904-001 - The Complainant was unfairly dismissed by way of constructive dismissal, and I award €40,000.00 compensation for financial losses incurred. Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 CA-00070904-002 – The complaint herein is well founded, and I direct that the sum of €1,000.00 be paid.
|
Dated: 08/06/2026
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|