Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Remigiusz  Prokopow

Vector Workplace and Facilities Management Limited (amended on consent)

Representatives

Self-Represented

IBEC

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00073925-001

30/07/2025

The Complainant gave evidence on Affirmation with the assistance of a Polish interpreter who also swore Affirmation. Between 30 July 2025 and 5 January 2026, the Complainant filed 15 separate detailed submissions, who confirmed, when asked, that he was fully aware of the contents.

It was the Complainant’s evidence he was employed by the Respondent in a facilities/cleaning role within a shopping centre environment. The complaint arises from alleged penalisation after raising concerns about his working hours.

Ms Lian Rooney of IBEC was the Respondent’s representative, assisted by Ms Lucy Sheehan, also of IBEC. Ms Josephine Byrne, National Soft Services Manager, and Mr Jaydean Nicell, Health and Safety Officer, gave evidence on behalf of the Respondent on Affirmation. Mr. David McMullan, HR Business Partner, and Ms Ciara Murray, ER Specialist, also attended.

The parties were advised that they must open the relevant documents in evidence they wish to rely on particular due to the volume of documents submitted by the Complainant.

The name of the Respondent was amended at the outset of the hearing to Vector Workplace and Facilities Management Limited.

These complaints were heard along with ADJ-00060562.

The Complainant gave evidence that he was required to be on site at 7:00am and raised issues concerning timekeeping expectations. In particular he gave evidence of the time it took him to travel and park his car and present for work.  It was his evidence that he was subject to a disciplinary investigation in February 2025 which was withdrawn. A second disciplinary investigation commenced on the same day which continued until June 2025 resulting in a final written warning which was subject to an appeal.

The Complainant submitted the disciplinary action and subsequent treatment constituted penalisation for exercising his rights under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

The Complainant further stated that it had not originally been his intention to bring complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”), but that the situation escalated over time, which ultimately led to the referral of the complaints.

Ms Josephine Byrne, National Soft Services Manager, gave evidence that there was no connection between the Complainant’s safety complaints and any subsequent treatment of him.

Evidence was given on the disciplinary process concerning the Complainant’s refusal to carry out his duties which commenced on 24 December 2024 and concluded on 14 February with an outcome not upholding the allegations against the Complainant. The second disciplinary investigation commenced on 14 February 2025 and related to ongoing time keeping issues which resulted in a final written warning.

Ms Byrne stated that these matters were entirely separate from the Complainant’s safety complaints and were addressing his performance issues. Ms Byrne further outlined that during the disciplinary process the Complainant sought to introduce a number of additional matters which she considered unrelated to the issues under investigation. Consequently, they were not permitted to form part of the disciplinary process, instead arranging for such concerns to be addressed separately through an operational meeting. She stated that meetings were organised to discuss these matters, including an initial meeting arranged with union representation which did not proceed when the Complainant did not attend, followed by a subsequent engagement where his concerns were addressed. Ms Byrne also stated in evidence that the Complainant did not, at any stage, indicate that he believed he was being penalised for raising concerns, and no such penalisation occurred.

Section 26 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (the “Act”) provides: -

“26. — (1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation of an employee for—

(a) invoking any right conferred on him or her by this Act,

(b) having in good faith opposed by lawful means an act that is unlawful under this Act,

(c) giving evidence in any proceedings under this Act, or

(d) giving notice of his or her intention to do any of the things referred to in the preceding paragraphs.”

Section 26 (5) further defines penalisation: -

“(5) In this section "penalisation" means any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects an employee to his or her detriment with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,

(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,

(d) imposition or the administering of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty), and

(e) coercion or intimidation.”

The Complainant’s evidence was that issues regarding his required start time of 7:00am, together with the disciplinary processes culminating in a final written warning, constituted the detriment he experienced and amounted to penalisation.

The Respondent, through Ms Byrne, maintained that the disciplinary processes arose solely from timekeeping and performance-related issues, were entirely unrelated to any complaint made by the Complainant, and did not constitute penalisation.

Having regard to the totality of the evidence, it is accepted that the disciplinary process and the issuing of a final written warning constitute a detriment for the purposes of considering a complaint of penalisation. However, the existence of a detriment alone is not sufficient to ground a claim under Section 26 of the Act.

It is found that the Complainant did not establish that he engaged in a protected act within the meaning of the Act. While he raised concerns regarding start times and timekeeping expectations, there was no clear evidence that he invoked or sought to exercise a specific statutory entitlement under the Act. Instead, the matter was one of a contractual start time. Nor was there evidence that any such complaint was communicated to the Respondent as a matter arising under that legislation.

In any event, even if accepted that a protected act had occurred, I am not satisfied that the disciplinary action complained of was imposed by reason of the Complainant having exercised rights under the Act. It is accepted the Respondent’s evidence that the disciplinary processes arose from ongoing concerns regarding timekeeping and the performance of duties, and that these matters were dealt with as part of the Respondent’s legitimate management of performance. The evidence does not support a finding that the disciplinary action, including the final written warning, was causally connected to any assertion of working time rights.

Accordingly, I find that the Complainant has not made out a complaint of penalisation under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.

For the reasons outlined above, I find the complaint is not well founded.