EDA2648

PARTIES:

CBM IRELAND

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00054905 (CA-00066943-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 (1), Employment Equality Acts, 1998 to 2015 on 10 July 2025.

Labour Court hearings took place on 12 August 2026.

The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

Background

This is the Complainant’s appeal against Adjudication Officer Decision ADJ-00054905, CA-00066943-001, in a complaint of discrimination on the ground of race. The Adjudication Officer held that the Complainant had not established a prima facie case and that his complaint was not well founded. The complaint was lodged with the WRC on 24 October 2024. The Adjudication Officer issued their decision on 9 July 2025, and the appeal was lodged with the Labour Court on 10 July 2025. The case was heard in Dublin on 12 August 2026. The reckonable period for the purpose of the Act is 25 April 2024 to 24 October 2024.

1. Summary of the Complainant’s Submission.

The Complainant submitted that he applied for the position of Finance Officer with the Respondent on 19 June 2024 and was called for interview on 11 July 2024. Following the interview process, a recommendation to proceed to an offer was presented to the CEO. On 15 July 2024, the CEO met with the Complainant. On 21 July 2024, the Complainant received an email advising that they were pleased to offer him the role “pending receipt of two satisfactory references of which at least one should be from one of your two most recent employers”. The Complainant stated that, due to civil unrest in Bangladesh, he might have difficulties obtaining references from his previous employers and that he initially proposed two Irish references. However, the Respondent stated that it required two references from Bangladesh, as the roles he had held there were more closely aligned with the role he was being offered.

After he submitted both Bangladeshi references, the Respondent changed course and requested an Irish reference, which he supplied. When the Respondent received the Irish reference, it withdrew the offer of employment because it considered the reference unsatisfactory. At that time, the Complainant did not know what was in the reference. He submitted that he was discriminated against on the ground of race and that he was relying on a hypothetical comparator. He submitted that an Irish person would not have been asked to submit references from Bangladesh. He also submitted that the Respondent should have relied solely on the two references from Bangladesh and not on the Irish reference, as that reference related to work in a different type of job. In response to a clarification sought by the Court, he confirmed that if an Irish person had worked in Bangladesh and it was one of their most recent employments, they would probably be asked for a reference from there. He submitted that the last act of discrimination occurred on 23 August 2024, when the Respondent withdrew the job offer.

2. Summary of the Respondent’s Submission

The Respondent advertised a position on 17 June 2024 for the role of Finance and Administration Officer. Five applicants were shortlisted, and two attended for interview. The Complainant was one of the two who attended for interview on 11 July 2024. He received the highest score, and a recommendation to proceed to an offer was made to the CEO. The Complainant met with the CEO at the Respondent’s offices on 15 July 2024. During that meeting, the Complainant informed the CEO that his Stamp 1G visa was due to expire. A valid work visa was a requirement for the job. He went on to say that he would need to apply for a Critical Skills Employment Permit in order to remain in Ireland. The Complainant was reminded that the role required the successful candidate to hold a valid permit to work in Ireland, and his attention was drawn to an email in which he had stated that he held a renewable Stamp 1G visa for employment. The CEO informed him that he would ask the Advocacy Manager to discuss the visa issue with him. By email the following day, the Complainant stated that the visa was his responsibility and that he was attending to it.

By email dated 21 July 2024, the Respondent offered the role “pending receipt of 2 references of which at least one should be from one of your two most recent employers.” The letter went on to state that the “offer is conditional upon the receipt of satisfactory references from two referees, one of whom should be your current or most recent line manager”. A copy of the offer letter was attached to that email.

On 22 July 2024, the Complainant replied, stating that, due to civil unrest in Bangladesh, there might be difficulties obtaining references from his previous employers there and that he would “like to retain references information from two of his workplaces in Ireland although the job descriptions were of another sector”.

On 23 July 2024, the Respondent confirmed that the Irish references would be accepted, although a reference from Bangladesh would also be required because the Irish references were of tangential relevance to the position for which he had applied. The Complainant replied later that day and stated that he would “ensure that the references from Ireland are taken care of ASAP”. He went on to say, “Regarding the visa concern, I again apologise for the expiry issue and am trying my best to ensure a viable solution is ensured ASAP”.

On 25 July 2024, references were received from two of his previous employers in Bangladesh, and on 1 August 2024, a reference was received from the Irish employer, who was his most recent employer. The reference from the Irish employer raised concerns, as it identified issues relating to teamwork, initiative, and communication competencies. It was therefore followed up with a telephone call to that employer. Following internal discussions arising from the concerns raised in the reference, the decision was made not to proceed with the offer of employment, as the reference provided by his most recent employer was deemed unsatisfactory. The Respondent contacted the Complainant by telephone on 22 August 2024 and informed him that it would not be proceeding with the offer of employment due to an unsatisfactory reference from his previous employer. This decision was then communicated by email the following day. The Complainant requested sight of the reference, and it was provided on 13 September 2024 once the previous employer’s consent had been received.

The Respondent did not discriminate against the Complainant on the ground of race or on any other ground. The offer of employment was not proceeded with because of the unsatisfactory reference received. The Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and therefore his appeal must fail.

3. Discussion and Determination

The following facts in this case are not in dispute. The Complainant was given an offer of employment subject to satisfactory references. The offer of employment was withdrawn following receipt of an unsatisfactory reference from his previous employer. The Complainant has not established any link between the withdrawal of the offer and his race, nor has he identified a relevant comparator who was treated differently.

On that basis, the Court determines that the appeal fails. The decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AL	______________________
14/09/2026	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be in writing and addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.