Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mr Ayeyemi  Adeba

ICTS IRELAND LIMITED

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr William Wall Peninsula

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00060233-004

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00060233-005

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00060233-009

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00060233-010

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00060233-014

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00060233-021

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

CA-00060233-022

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00060233-023

24/11/2023

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

CA-00060233-025

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00060233-030

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00060233-031

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00060233-033

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00060233-035

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00060233-036

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00060233-037

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00060233-038

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00060233-040

24/11/2023

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003)

CA-00060233-042

24/11/2023

These matters came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 24/11/2023.  The Complainant alleges contraventions by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statutes in relation to his employment with the Respondent. 

The first hearing of these matters took place on Friday 10/05/2024 heard in conjunction with another set of complaints bearing the reference ADJ-00049857 for which there is a separate decision. 

At the first hearing on Friday 10/05/2024 I sought clarification on the 38 claims in the within case in line with the WRC Guidance Note for an Adjudication Hearing which provides as follows:

“The Adjudication Officer will clarify the claim/s before them and verify appropriate data, depending on the type of claim.”

On Monday 13/05/2024 I wrote to the parties setting out my understanding of the complaints remaining to be heard following lengthy discussions that had taken place at hearing on Friday 10/05/2024 during which I sought clarity on the nature of the complaints.  I provided extensive explanation and comprehensive clarification to the Complainant in circumstances where there was duplication of complaints and in circumstances where the Complainant had impleaded legislation that provided for categories of workers to which he did not belong. 

The following is my correspondence of 13/05/2024 to the Complainant which mirrors that sent to the Respondent and is set out hereunder:   

“DearMr Adeba,

I write in regard to ADJ-00049511 and further to the hearing that took place in Lansdowne House on Friday 10th May 2024. 

I indicated to the parties at close of hearing that I would provide clarification on the specific complaints by correspondence.  Accordingly, please find set out hereunder my understanding of the complaints outstanding following on from hearing on Friday 10th May 2024 during which I sought clarification on the claims in line with the WRC Guidance Note for an Adjudication Hearing which provides as follows:

“The Adjudication Officer will clarify the claim/s before them and verify appropriate data, depending on the type of claim.”

I would be grateful if you could carefully review that which is set out hereunder.  In the event you are not satisfied that I have provided the correct clarification on the claims still outstanding (highlighted in red for ease of reference) I would be grateful if you could revert by close of business on or before Friday 24th May 2024. 

Failure to reply to this letter within the period specified will be regarded as your consent to a reconvened hearing of the specific complaints set out hereunder (highlighted in red).   

I thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

Yours sincerely etc”

The Complainant did not respond to the above correspondence.  The Complainant filed supplemental submissions with the WRC on 18/09/2024. 

The Respondent filed supplemental submissions with the WRC on 25/09/2024. 

The supplemental submissions filed in advance of this hearing by the Complainant on 18/09/2024 provided the following narrative in respect of all of the Complainant’s complaints as follows: 

“The Complainant was chipped away from his achievement by making a complaint of bullying, and harassment and/or having indicated he was bringing proceedings.”

The aforesaid complaints comprised of claims pursuant to the following legislation:

Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 x 2

Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information Act) Act, 1994 x 3

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 x 1

Section 28 of the Safety Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005 x 1

Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 x 1

Section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 x 1

Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973 x 2

Regulation 10 of the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (S.I. No. 131 of 2003 x 7

There was also a dispute submitted under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

Despite being provided with numerous opportunities during the hearing the Complainant refused to particularise any of his complaints.  The Complainant gestured to the numerous lever arch files containing the voluminous submissions filed by him with the WRC (some filed online and some hard copies delivered by the Complainant) much of the contents of which were in no particular order that were on the table in front of me at hearing.  The Complainant indicated that all the information that was required was already provided by him and he did not see the need to provide any further information to me at hearing or any detail in relation to his 19 specific complaints to which the Respondent could respond.

The Complainant’s manual complaint form in and of itself to the WRC comprised 194 pages and was submitted together with a USB stick which was duly returned to him by the WRC.  Other submissions followed providing additional information one of which comprised 164 pages.   

The aforesaid submissions included email threads between the Complainant and a number of Respondent personnel; screen shots of text messages between the Complainant and a number of Respondent personnel; work rosters; payslips; contact of employment with original employer; email thread between the Complainant and his trade union; email thread between the Complainant and the Irish Refugee Council; correspondence exchanged between the Complainant and Dublin City Council; numerus revenue documents; correspondence exchanged between the Complainant and the Department of Social Protection; TUPE correspondence and documents;  medical certificates; medical referrals; and a “witness statement”  submitted by the Complainant detailing conversations he had in person with the Respondent supervisor and phone conversations which he had recorded without the other party’s knowledge or consent. 

The aforesaid witness statement included a witness impact statement claiming that he has been psychologically manipulated and brainwashed.  The Complainant claims he was manipulated by this trade union.  The Complainant claims that by changing his name the Respondent has deliberately split his identity to suit their own narrative (the title Ms was erroneously used on the Complainant’s payslip). 

The Complainant alleges gaslighting; smear campaigns; triangulation and exploitation; and monitoring by his trade union who took away his file and put it on the shelf. 

The Complainant indicated at hearing while I was trying to encourage him to focus on the specifics of his complaints that it was the role of the Adjudicator to ascertain the nature of his many claims from the various submissions provided by him as outlined above.    

The Respondent representative and respondent witnesses attended at hearing and were unable to reply to the matters raised by the Complainant in his complaints pursuant to the various statutes due to his refusal to particularise his specific complaints. 

The Workplace Relations Commission hears thousands of cases every year.  It is inevitable that there will be challenging adjudication hearings.  However, this was one of the very rare cases in which there was sustained and persistent disrespect for the process itself; for the Respondent representative; for the Respondent witnesses; and for me as the Adjudication Officer. 

In fact, I found the level of disrespect shown to be quite extraordinary and unprecedented. 

I note the Workplace Relations Commission procedure on the adjudication of complaints provides as follows:

“Conduct at the Hearing:

Parties should treat each other and the Adjudication Officer and WRC staff members with respect.  If a party’s behaviour impacts on the conduct of the case it may be necessary for the Adjudication Officer to terminate proceedings.”

The Complainant raised his voice to me on numerous occasions when I was seeking to inform him of what was necessary for him to state his case in order that the Respondent could meet the various complaints.  I explained to the Complainant that I was trying to assist him to state his case.  It is noted we did not progress any further than the first complaint. 

The Complainant alleged that he had been coerced by me into reducing the number of his complaints at the first hearing and that the correspondence forwarded by me to him after the first hearing constituted coercion and harassment.    

I continued to attempt to explain to the Complainant that there was a requirement that he provide detail on his complaints so that the Respondent could address the complaints.   

The Complainant refused to answer direct questions that I asked him in order to elicit some detail from him and continued to speak over me as I addressed him.  The Complainant embarked on a diatribe in regard to his trade union and in regard to Revenue and when I tried to explain to him that these were matters not properly before me for investigation he continued to speak over me.   

I suspended the hearing for 15 minutes and prior to leaving the room I advised the Complainant that if he raised his voice to me again or if he spoke over me again or if he spoke over the Respondent representative again that I would be forced to end the hearing. 

The hearing reconvened after 15 minutes, and I asked the parties to please note the following which I read to them from the High Court judgment of Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger in the case of Ammi Burke v. An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission (Respondents) and Arthur Cox LLP (Notice Party) [2023] IEHC 360 at para 24 as follows:

The Right to a Fair Hearing and Consequent Obligations

“All court users must respect the court and allow it to proceed with its business.  A person’s obligation to respect a court and its important processes go hand in hand with their rights to litigate and their rights to fair procedures.  The mutual nature of those rights and obligations was confirmed to be part of the law, in so far as that is necessary and not self-evident, in the decision of O’Donnell J ….”

I explained to the Complainant that while he had every right to have his case heard and every right to fair procedures that I too had a right not to be subject to abuse by him and that the Respondent had the same right.  I asked the Complainant if he understood what this meant to which replied that he understood.    

The hearing continued and within minutes the Complainant shouted at me again and spoke over me as I tried to ascertain from him yet again the nature of his complaint as part of my statutory duty to inquire into his complaint.   

The Complainant refused to answer very specific direct questions that I put to him in my attempts to encourage him to focus on matters relevant to his complaints.  The Complainant misquoted something I had said and then refused to respond when I asked him to repeat it for clarification purposes.

The Complainant’s behaviour by this time prevented the process of adjudication from taking its course and rendered it impossible to continue.   I suspended the hearing for a second time at which time the hearing ended with the Complainant attempting to record me with his phone followed by the Complainant playing a recording on his phone loudly prior to leaving the room.      

Turning to legal precedent in this regard I am mindful of Ammi Burke v. An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission (Respondents) and Arthur Cox LLP (Notice Party) [2024] IECA 105 wherein Noonan J stated as follows: 

 “[t]he right of access to the court is not absolute and brings with it certain obligations.  Parties who are not prepared to assume those obligations may find themselves forfeiting that right of access… The integrity of the court process requires the court to guard and relieve against abuse where it occurs.  The court’s inherent jurisdiction entitles it to protect against abuse by making such order as the justice of the case requires.  That includes, in rare and exceptional instances, a power to strike out and/or dismiss a claim - see for example Tracey v Burton [2016] IESC 16 and W.L. Construction Limited v Chawke [2016] IEHC 539… … A judge must be afforded a wide margin of discretion to control his or her own court in the face of abusive conduct… I cannot see how it can be said that the court had somehow a continuing obligation to determine the litigation on the merits in circumstances where the party bringing that litigationwas actively pursuing the objective of preventing a fair hearing from taking place.”

I am mindful also of Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger cited above where she held as follows at para 30:

Abuse of Process

Rights can be exercised in a way that becomes an abuse of process. In Crowley v. Ireland [1980] 1 I.R. 102 O’Higgins C.J. said at 125:

“Rights guaranteed by the Constitution must be exercised having regard to the rights of others. It is on this basis that such rights are given by the Constitution. Once it is sought to exercise such rights without regard to the rights of others and without regard to the harm done to others then what is taking place is an abuse and not the exercise of a right given by the Constitution. The abuse of such rights ranks equally with the infringement of the rights of others and should be condemned by thecourts in protection of the Constitution.”

Having carefully considered and applied the principles as set out above in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal, I conclude there will not be another hearing of these matters as the Complainant has forfeited his right of access to another hearing by virtue of his abusive conduct. 

I find I do not have a continuing obligation to determine these matters in the face of such abusive conduct.  

In this case, the Complainant’s behaviour prevented the process of adjudication from continuing its course, in line with fair procedures.

I cannot, therefore, find that the complaints are well-founded.  I formally decide that the complaints as set out above are not well-founded. 

For the reasons set out above I decide the complaints are not well-founded. 

Abuse of process;