Complainant

Respondent

Parties

James Emine  Pastor

Synergy Security Solutions Property Security Services

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 81E of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004

CA-00066405-001

01/10/2024

Adjudicator Note

The complainant clarified at the outset of the hearing that he had made an error on the complaint form in his selection of the statute under which he wished to proceed.

He confirmed that he intended that his complaint should be taken under the Employment Equality Acts and not as stated above. As this intention was clear from the complaint form it was agreed to proceed on that basis.

The complainant had been employed as a security officer and was on a period of probation.

The probation was, according to the respondent, not satisfactory and was terminated on September 20th, 2024, with one week’s notice.

The complainant had set out his concerns in a letter to the company on September 9th, 2024, from which the following is drawn.

His specific concerns were difficulties in receiving access to essential systems, and delays in resolving problems with his PPE, which, he says, affected his ability to perform his duties effectively.

One key issue was footwear The boots which had been issued to him caused significant discomfort and injury. Despite raising this he was initially instructed to continue wearing the problem boots until a supervisor intervened. The footwear was replaced, and his injured left toe recovered.

However, the delay caused pain during shifts.

He identified a number of systems to which he did not have access despite being employed as a Security Officer for nearly six months. He raised these several times, most recently on 10/09/2024, but got no satisfaction. Other newly recruited employees, with less than a month’s service, had been granted access.

He viewed this is an oversight, but it had impacted his ability to perform his role effectively and may reflect unfair treatment. He had also been informed by a manager of a risk of dismissal for minor mistakes, which added unnecessary stress to the work environment. He says other security staff had been dismissed from the site, raising concerns about job security.

The complainant gave oral evidence on affirmation.

He said that the first pair of boots he was given had to be replaced as they were not suitable for the particular assignment he was on. He was given the second pair about two months after he commenced with the respondent, and it was one of the boots in this pair that did not fit him properly on one foot.

He confirmed in his evidence that this was the incident which constituted the alleged breach of the Act. In terms of comparators, he stated that other employees who joined the company after that were given properly fitting boots. He gave examples of two employees who were from India and both of whom were women.

He made the same general point about the denial of access codes for various programmes he said were necessary to carry out his job.

The respondent says that the complainant has not established a prima facie case under the Employment Equality Act in respect of either of the episodes on which he seeks to rely.

An account was given of the performance issues with the complainant and various mistakes made by him which led to his probation not being satisfactorily concluded.

A decision was taken to terminate his probation, and this was done on September 20th, 2024. The complainant referred the matter to the WRC a few days later on October 1st.

Stefano Michael, the respondent‘s Site Security Manager gave evidence on affirmation.

He stated that the complainant was issued with the same footwear as everyone else and that he had never complained about it.

In relation to his access to security codes, Mr Michael said the complainant was treated the same as every other person in his position, for example having regard to his level of training etc.

He was not eligible for any other level of security clearance than he had, and this had nothing to do with his race. He did not have an entitlement to any additional security passes.

It is accepted that the complainant made an administrative error in his selection of the applicable statute. It is clear from the complaint form that he intended to proceed under the Employment Equality Acts.

The narrative of events is as set out above and insofar as it is relevant to an assessment of the complaint, it is not in dispute.

While it is not a factor in determining the complaint, I accept that the respondent terminated the complainant’s employment in accordance with the normal practice for doing so and nothing turns on that.

The complainant submits that one of the boots in a pair of boots he received in May, almost four months before his termination was ill-fitting.

This only came to the respondent’s attention formally on September 9th 2024, and is one of the episodes which represents the basis for his complaint.

This is despite the fact that he gives the date of the last incident of discrimination as September 17th on the WRC Complaint Form, but there was no reference at the hearing to anything that happened on September 17th that might constitute a breach of the Act.

The uncontested evidence of Mr Michael on behalf of the respondent totally undermines the complainant’s suggestion of a breach of the Act. The complainant was not selected for any less favourable treatment of any sort. He also failed to produce any comparator other than a number of unidentified women of Asian origin.

Indeed, the complaint, based as it is on one ill-fitting boot and a claim for security passes to which he was not entitled is entirely without merit.

He has failed to make out a prima facie case and the complaint is not well-founded.

For the reasons set out above complaint CA-00066405-001 is not well founded. 

Equality, prima facie case