Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A security Officer

A security company

Representatives

Terence J O'Sullivan Terence J O'Sullivan Solicitors

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-00012846-001

28/07/2017

The complainant alleges that he was unfairly dismissed from is employment as a security guard. He was the holder of a PSA (basic guarding licence) ( static). He attended at a two day training course and when completed he was given the licence. The PSA training does not include any psychological training of any kind for the purpose of monitoring terrorism activities, graphic content, ISIS head decapitations and such like. The complainant brought this lack of technical training to the attention of the respondent. The complainant stated that part of his daily functions was to monitor terrorism activities and was forced to watch videos of ISIS head decapitations. His general lack of training, in the area of terrorism monitoring caused him great concern. This issue became prevalent towards the back end of his employment when the relationship between himself and the respondent began to break down due to his refusal to carry out a ‘shift leader position’ on a night shift. The complainant refused to carry out his functions due to his lack of training in relation to terrorism activities. He felt that his relationship with the respondent broke down in or around this time.

In or around late 2016 early 2017 there was another issue with the respondent. That was in relation to pay. Staff had begun to talk about an increase in wages as the hourly rate was €10.75. This rate is the minimum hourly rate within the sector. The complainant, together with three other staff members, decided to write a pay increase letter to the respondent. The complainant was the individual who drafted this letter and as a result he feels that the respondent’s change of attitude towards him was directly related to the drafting and sending of the letter in relation to pay. From that point onwards to respondent started a process of bullying, coercion, intimidation and victimisation against him. The respondent did not even consider the pay increase letter. They simply through it in the bin. The complainant, due to the commencement of a disciplinary process was banned from the workplace. Furthermore, he was banned from making contact with any of his work colleagues. Due to the complainant refusal to work at his normal place of work the respondent imposed a change of work location on him. The new location was not acceptable to the complainant. The complainant does not accept the respondent’s explanation that this was not part of a disciplinary sanction but was merely a change of work location in line with his contract of employment.

The last day the complainant actually worked, was the 16th of February 2017. He did not accept that the respondent could move him to another location and that was the reason for his refusal to return to work. He was deeply distressed when the respondent stopped paying him. On the 17th of February, 2017 the respondent sent a defamatory email to all of the complainant’s work colleagues. The email was sent internally and as the complainant was not in the workplace at the time he did not have access to the email and was not given an opportunity to defend himself. A colleague sent the email to him. This issue of defamation is currently before the Courts.

The respondent failed to deal with the complainant’s access request within the 14-day statutory time limit. To date the request has not been complied with in particular the respondent has failed to provide the complainant with documentation in relation to is monitoring of ISIS terrorism activities in the course of his daily duties. The data protection request issue is still ongoing at the moment.

On the 22nd of March, 2017 the respondent arranged a meeting with the complainant. It was arranged for the Plaza Hotel in Blanchardstown. The complainant took issue with the venue as he felt it was not an appropriate venue. He felt that the respondent should have booked a private room for the meeting so that patrons in the hotel could not over hear the discussion. The complainant also takes issue with the minutes of this meeting. The complainant believes that the minutes were altered to suit the respondent. His belief is based on the fact that when the note taker went out to print the notes off at reception, he took an unusually long time to do so and when he returned was fidgeting and was uncomfortable. He then provided the complainant with only 3 pages of notes despite the meeting going on for over 2 hours.

Following this meeting the complainant was given an ultimatum "accept your change of work location otherwise your employment will be terminated".

The complainant would not accept a change in his work location. He was dismissed in April 2017. Following his dismissal his P45 was sent to him. He was not given a right of appeal. He formally requested a right to appeal the decision but this was ignored by the respondent.

Since his dismissal, the respondent has made numerous applications for a job. He has failed to do so today. He has now enrolled on a bachelor of business in international Business level eight course which he will finish in June 2018.

The complainant commenced work with the respondent on the 28th of August 2015. He signed his contract of employment on that date. In the contract of employment it states “your normal place of work will be as per your roster issued. You may be required to work at any other premises or at the premises of our customers, clients, suppliers or Associates within Ireland. At all relevant times in the course of his employment, the complainant worked at the premises of the respondent’s client called X.

A number of issues came to the attention of the respondent and it was agreed with X that the complainant would be removed from the site. The respondent was obliged to act on foot of that agreement. The specific issue that led to complainant’s dismissal, was that he refused to work on any other of the respondent’s sites. Once the complainant was informed that he could no longer work on the site of x, an inordinate number of email exchanges were made between the complainant and the respondent HR representative. The complainant raised a number of issues, in relation to his employment, in those e-mails. He was asked on six occasions, 19th 22nd and 27th of February 2017 and 8th, 9th, 15th March 2017 to invoke the company's grievance procedures in relation to those issues. The respondent HR representative also suggested that the complainant attend at a meeting with him so that they could attempt to resolve his issues. He made that request on five occasions. However, despite the efforts of the respondent, the complainant continually refused to attend at those meetings and continually refused to attend at work.

The complainant did attend a meeting on the 22nd of March 2017. At that meeting the complainant was offered sites convenient to him and more suitable for him, but again, he refused to work on any other site other than site X. The respondent was not in a position to allow the complainant to continue to work at that site because the company situated there had asked for him to be removed from the site.

The complainant was advised on two occasions 3rd of April and 5th of April 2017 that if he continued to refuse to turn up for work his employment would be terminated. When it was clear to the respondent that the claimant was not going to work on any of the other sites they were left with no option but to dismiss the claimant and to issue him with a P45.

The respondent denies the allegations made by the complainant in relation to the ISIS beheadings and terrorism monitoring. The complainant was employed as a standard security guard at one of their client’s premises. His role had nothing to do with terrorism. In general terms, a discussion was had about what procedures should be followed should there ever be a terrorist attack, in this Country. It was a general conversation based on the many terrorism attacks that have happened in Europe in the last few years. The respondent company has nothing to do with monitoring terrorism, ISIS or anything of the like.