Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ibrahim  Adam

Sky Handling Partner

Representatives

Holly Smith of Peninsula Business Services Ireland

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-00073815-001

28/07/2025

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent from the 3rd of September 2024 until the  25th of July 2025 as an Aircraft Service Agent. He was dismissed following a traffic incident involving a vehicle the Complainant was driving while airside at an airport.

The Complainant submitted a complaint under the unfair dismissals act. At the time of his dismissal he had less than one year’s continuous service. Section 2(1) of the Act excludes any employee with less than one year’s continuous service from the protections of the Act.

There is an exclusion from this exclusion contained at Section 14 of the Unfair Dismissals Amendment Act 1993 which states that: Sections 2 (1), 3 and 4 and subsections (1) and (6) of section 6 of the Principal Act shall not apply to a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of the said section 2 (1) or the said section 3 or 4 who is dismissed if the dismissal results wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters referred to in subsection (2) (a) of the said section 6.

Section 6 (2) of the Act (i.e. the principal act) contains a number of specific grounds for which dismissal is prohibited, including religion, political opinions, race, sexual orientation and age. In the Complainants submissions he outlined a general allegation that his dismissal was discriminatory but did not outline the basis for the alleged discrimination.

 At the hearing I invited the Complainant to provide me with further detail related to his allegation of discrimination so I could consider whether or not the exclusion outlined in Section 2(1) applied to him.

The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation with the assistance of a translator. He made further written submissions following the hearing.

The Complainant worked for the company for almost 11 months as a full-time employee. He submits he had no previous warnings or disciplinary problems and that he was a hardworking and reliable employee.

The incident that happened on 3rd July was a one-time mistake and a minor accident. Nobody was injured, and the Complainant accepted responsibility for what happened. The Complainant submits that dismissing him straight away was unfair and too harsh, especially because he had never received any warning.

He feels was treated differently compared to other employees. There have been other accidents in the workplace, including more serious ones, but those employees were not dismissed. The Complainant feels that he was singled out because he was newer in the role and was not given the same chance as others.

The Complainant believes his dismissal was unfair and disproportionate.

The Respondent submits they behaved reasonably and fairly in dismissing the Complainant following a serious incident which resulted in damage to company property. He was in no way discriminated against.

The Respondent’s representative Ms Smith points out that the Complainant is excluded from bringing a claim under this act and he has identified no prohibited ground under Section 6 (2) of the act.

Section 2(1) provides that:this Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons: (a) an employee (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year’s continuous service with the employer who dismissed him 

The Complainant has less than one year’s service with the Respondent. The Complainant has not identified any prohibited ground under Section 6(2) of the Act for which he alleges he was dismissed. Being dismissed for making a mistake as a recent hire is not prohibited by Section 6(2).  

The Act does not apply to the Complainant.  

For the reasons set out above I dismiss the claim.