Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Tomasz  Orlinski

Alchemy Telco Solutions Ltd

Representatives

Krystian Boino Boino Solicitors

Sean Nolan Clark Hill Solicitors LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00074245-001

11/08/2025

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

CA-00082829-001

10/04/2026

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in March 2023. His employment ended in February 2026.  He was paid a gross amount of €721 per week.

At the outset of the hearing the complainant’s representative stated that the complaint is limited to a complaint of discrimination based on nationality/race. The complainant is Polish.

The complainant stated that he had commenced employment with the respondent as a Senior Technician, his role being to train staff and control the devices for repair.

In November 2022, he was asked by his manager to check an employee’s timekeeping which was outside the scope of his role. He was described as Team Leader at the time by his seniors and he was asked to do reports and order parts, to carry out training and monitor absences.

In May 2023, in his annual review for 2022, he was titled “Repair Team Leader”.  He received high scores in his review from his line manager, Mr G; his overall mark was, “Exceptional Performer”. However, this was subsequently downgraded to “Solid Performer” by Mr S. The Complainant believes his grade was reduced because if he had remained as an “Exceptional Performer”, he would have been entitled to a pay increase.

In January 2024 Mr G left the company. After he left Mr S came to the Repair Room and met the team.  He told the complainant to move desk to Mr G’s old desk and take over his role as manager; Mr S made this clear to all the team. The complainant did as instructed.

This change also coincided with the complainant having to complete additional reports on polishing and productivity.  He had to do the orders for parts and equipment.  He had to advise other technicians on how to do their jobs.  He stated that he was really overloaded. He was also dealing with Quality Control and the Customer Service Departments. These were tasks previously carried out by Mr G.

The complainant stated that his salary at the time was that of Senior Technician, €22,500.

The complainant’s representative stated that the comparator was now a hypothetical comparator.

In his evidence the complainant emphasised the amount and level of work he was being asked to do, It was well above what his contract had required.  For example, he was supervising a group of 10 to 20 people. By May 2024, he was doing all the tasks that had previously been done by Mr G, in addition to other tasks. The same month his salary was increased to €37,500. 

The complainant referred to two technicians, Mr S, a Bulgarian, who reported to him who was on a salary of €41,500 and Mr R, a Lithuanian, who also reported to him and was on a salary of €38,500.

The complainant submitted that he was performing a higher role but was being paid less than other employees who were of different nationality to him. The complainant stated that he had looked for pay increases many times.

An issue arose in the section and an investigation took place.  There was blanket disciplinary action taken against everyone in the complainant’s section.  When fully investigated, it was discovered that there had been an issue but it was not related to the work of the team.  The complainant thought there would be some sort of apology from management, but an apology was never forthcoming.

Regarding the claim for discriminatory dismissal, the complainant stated that at a performance review in April 2024, covering the previous year, his rating was downgraded to “underperformer”.  He was not happy with nor did he agree with this rating, so he lodged an appeal. The outcome of the appeal was issued in June 2025; the appeal was not successful. This matter caused a great deal of stress for the complainant; he had never had a poor review before the one in question.

Because of the stress the complainant stated that he was not able to go back to his place of work. He was out sick until February 2026, when he decided to leave the company.

When asked that he should have been paid, the complainant stated that the previous manager’s salary was €55,000 and he, the complainant, had additional duties over and above what the previous manager had carried out.

In answers to questions put to him in cross examination, the complainant agreed that his contract of employment did not refer to  him being a Senior Technician, however, he said that from January 2024, he started doing his previous manager’s tasks.

The complainant agreed that his previous manager was the same nationality as he was, Polish.

When it was put to him that he had failed to be selected for interview when the vacancy for his previous manager’s position was advertised, the complainant said that was correct.

When it was put to him that he was asserting that he had been discriminated on the ground of nationality in relation to his pay, the complainant’s response was that he “was not sure if that was to do with nationality”, when asked to elaborate on this he said, “I can only guess [it was] on nationality.” 

The complainant acknowledged that his complaint of discrimination was to do with him being paid less than Mr G.  If he had been paid the same as Mr G, he would have been happy.  When it was pointed out to him that Mr G was the same nationality as he, the complainant stated that two other employees were paid more, and they are not the same nationality as he is. He accepted these two employees reported to Mr G, before Mr G left.

It was put to the complainant that the reason these two individuals were paid more was to keep them working for the company, the complainant agreed but said he had been the Team Leader.

When it was put to him that pay can be based on many things, the complainant stated that he was discriminated against by way of his pay, he was looking for a reason as why this was so and he thought it must be because of his nationality.  When asked about his Complaint Form the complainant stated that at that time he was not thinking about nationality.

Following the complainant’s evidence I decided to adjourn the hearing and decide on the matter of whether a prima facie case of discrimination had been made out by the complainant.

The respondent was not asked to make a case, at this time.

I have considered this matter carefully.

The issue for decision by me is whether or not the respondent discriminated against the complainant on grounds of his nationality, in terms of section 6 of the Acts and contrary to section 8 of those Acts in relation to dismissal.   Section 85A of the Acts sets out the burden of proof which applies to claims of discrimination. It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which discrimination may be inferred. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised.   In the case of Dyflen Publications Limited and Ivana Spasic (ADE/08/7) the Labour Court, in adopting the approach of Mummery LJ in Madrassy v Nomura International plc [2007] IRLR 246, stated that "... the court should consider the primary facts which are relied upon by the complainant in their proper context. It also indicates that in considering if the burden of proof shifts the court should consider any evidence adduced by the respondent ...".

Having heard the evidence from the complainant, I find that while he believes he was paid less than he should have been, no evidence was adduced linking this belief to his nationality.  He himself stated in his evidence that he was only “guessing” when he linked his rate of pay to his nationality.

Whatever the merits of his arguments in relation to his pay, his claim of discrimination on grounds of nationality cannot succeed. He has failed to established a prima facia case of discrimination.

The complainant was not discriminated against.

The complainant was not discriminated against.

Prima facie, evidence