Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Nitish Kurup

FG Frasers Group Holdings (Global) Ltd

Representatives

Represented himself 

Tiernan Doherty BL

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00073219-001

08/07/2025

The complainant is a licensed security guard and he commenced employment with Pristine Security Services Limited at the end of February 2025.  Pristine Security Services was the provider of security personnel to the Sports Direct store in Talbot Street.  The respondent is the owner of the Sports Direct brand.  The complainant was one of around six security officers assigned to the Talbot Street store.  He said that he worked four or five 10-hour shifts every week and he was paid €15.00 per hour.

In his submission, the complainant said that supervisor of the security team in Sports Direct in Talbot Street was due to retire and that Pristine Security asked him to take on the job and to work alongside the retiring security guard in the expectation of being offered the job on his retirement.

On March 26th 2025, the complainant was on duty with a colleague when a manager brought to their attention the presence in the store of a man who, she said, had been banned for shoplifting in the past.  The man was accompanied by a young child.  The complainant said that three of the store managers approached the man and were aggressively asking him to leave.  He said that the man was cooperative when he and his colleague escorted him off the premises. 

As the man who was suspected of shoplifting was leaving the store, the complainant said that one of the managers criticised him for not following him closely enough.  He said that he and his colleague were following a protocol for dealing with a shoplifter and that he avoided being in the man’s personal space.  Later that day, the complainant said that he got a phone call from the duty manager in Pristine Security telling him that he would be sent to a different location from the next day.  He said he got no explanation, except that he wasn’t wanted in Sports Direct.

The complainant feels that he was humiliated in a public space, although he followed the correct protocol.  He said that his public image was tarnished and the prospect of him being appointed to the role of supervisor was sabotaged.  On the e-complaint form that he submitted to the WRC, the complainant claims that he was discriminated against on the ground of his civil status.

As the complainant represented himself, I asked him to outline his case that he was discriminated against.  He replied that he wasn’t discriminated against, but that he was “misbehaved against.”  When I explained the protected grounds for making a complaint about discrimination, the complainant said that his complaint is that the “ladies didn’t understand the protocols of the loss prevention officer.”

Scope of the Employment Equality Act in Relation to the Complainant

On July 8th 2025, the complainant sent an e-complaint form to the WRC in which he claimed that he was discriminated against by Pristine Security Limited on the ground of his civil status.  Although he submitted that complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000, on July 22nd 2025, he clarified his intention and confirmed that his intention was to make a complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998.  He also confirmed that he wished to make his complaint against Sports Direct.  His case is that the “misbehaviour” that he complains about was inflicted by the respondent’s managers.

The Employment Equality Act 1998 (“the Act”) is derived from Directive 2000/78/EC establishing the rights of employees to equal treatment in employment.  At s.2(1) of the Act, under the heading, “Interpretation,” a contract of employment is,

(a) a contract of service or apprenticeship, or

(b) any other contract whereby -

(i) an individual agrees with another person personally to execute any work or service for that person, or

(ii) an individual agrees with a person carrying on the business of an employment agency within the meaning of the Employment Agency Act 1971 to do or perform personally any work or service for another person (whether or not the other person is a party to the contract),

whether the contract is express or implied and, if express, whether oral or written[.]

I am satisfied that the complainant was employed by Pristine Security Limited specifically to provide work personally for the respondent.  I note that the definition at subsection (1)(b)(ii) above encompasses an individual who works for another person, having agreed to do so through an employment agency.  While Pristine Security is not a registered employment agency, the complainant was recruited by that company to provide services to the respondent in much the same manner as an employment agency places an individual in a separate business.  I am satisfied therefore, that the intention of the legislation is to encompass an individual, such as the complainant, who was assigned to work for the respondent through a company established for the purpose of placing licensed security personnel in third party businesses.

Considering the overarching objective of the Equal Treatment directive to ensure the rights of all persons to equality before the law and protection from discrimination, it is my view that an individual such as the complainant, who worked for between 30 and 40 hours per week in the respondent’s premises, under the authority of the respondent’s managers, must be included in the cohort of workers entitled to have bring a complaint about discrimination under the Employment Equality Act 1998 to the WRC.

Findings on the Substantive Issue

From the complainant’s evidence, it is apparent that he is concerned about how he was treated by the respondent’s managers, not in relation to any of the nine discriminatory grounds at s.6(2) of the Employment Equality Act, but in relation to what he claims was their failure to understand how he should do his job.  

As he did not pursue an argument that he was treated less favourably on any of the nine protected grounds, I find that the complainant has not established the basic facts that suggest that he was discriminated against by the respondent.  For this reason, I must conclude that his complaint is misconceived.

I decide that this complaint is not well founded because it is misconceived.

Basic facts do not show discrimination