ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00051643
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sikiru Ajibola | Securitas Group Limited |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Sikiru Ajibola | Securitas Group Limited |
Representatives | self | Danny Ryan BL |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 | CA-00063113-001 | 26/04/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 16/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This was the 3rd day assigned to this case. The first day was adjourned on application of the Complainant’s representative that the Respondent had filed their submission late. That application was acceded to. On the 2nd day of hearing the Complainant’s representative had changed and the new representative asked for an adjournment so that she could familiarise herself with the case which she just received. That was reluctantly agreed to so that a fair hearing could be conducted.
At today’s hearing the Complainant filed their submission late and arrived 30 minutes late for the hearing.
The Respondent took issue with the failure to abide by the Commission’s guidelines and for the hearing being delayed.
On the primary purpose of the Commission to hear from both parties the hearing proceeded and having received an apology from the Complainant for being late and for filing late. The Complainant attended without any representative.
The Complainant was asked if he understood English and he stated that he did understand the proceedings.
The Respondent stated that the Complainant had abused the process, that the complaint had changed and could not be classed as an Employment Equality Complaint, as no ground had been cited to show how the Complainant was less favourably treated. In the alternative the complaint as framed was out of time by nearly 18 months as originally it had been referred to as a bullying complaint.
The Preliminary Application to dismiss the case to decide if the complaint was properly before the Commission required sworn evidence to be heard from the Complainant, a day Supervisor, the Complainant’s Manager and the work colleague who it is alleged bullied and harassed the Complainant.
|
PRELIMINARY MATTER:
It is well settled law that a Complainant must particularise their claim so that it can be defended and that the Employer knows what case they must answer.
In his complaint lodged on 26th April 2024 the wrong is clearly described as bullying by another work colleague and that the employer did nothing about his complaint:
“My name is Sikiru Ajibola. I started working in Securitas on the 12th of February 2020. I would like to report a case of bullying by a staff of Securitas. This has been an on-going event which first started on September 2023. On that day I was on a night shift at Amazon Dub 14 (my workplace) when the first case of bullying by Mr Satya Jatta a colleague occurred. Following the incident, the campus coordinator officer (Mr Isaac Olatunde) called me on phone to address the issue but no reasonable step was taken to stop the bullying as Mr Jatta continued to bully me at my workplace. I could not bear the bullying anymore as I was emotionally traumatised, so I reported the issue to Securitas campus management but surprisingly, there was no response from them and no reasonable step has been taken to stop such bullying attitude. The bullying continued and on the 15th of March, 2024 the bullying was so bad that I suffered emotional, psychological and mental stress for days. On that day the security officer left his position which was Dub 21 and came directly to my assigned position and bullied and harassed me verbally. After abusing me, he slammed the security room door aggressively which caused serious alarm in the building. I felt so terrified and feared for my life. Despite reporting the incident to the management and despite the fact that the whole incident was caught on camera, nothing has been done to prevent future occurrence. My employer has shown no concern about the continuous bullying by the same staff despite all my complaints to the management, instead they continuously put me and Mr Jatta on the same shift without any measures in place to stop him from bullying, harassing and intimidating me. “
That Complaint is clear; however, it is not self-evident that it has the necessary elements to ground a discrimination claim. However, there is a very high bar to dismiss a complaint as misconceived.
Witness evidence was called to determine if the Complainant had made out a prima facie case of discrimination that would require a rebuttal of the alleged claim of discrimination.
The Complaint filed a supplementary submission on the 4th of July 2025 and claimed discrimination under the Equal Status Act.:
“This complaint is brought pursuant to the Equal Status Acts 2000–2018, which prohibit discrimination and harassment in the provision of goods and services, access to facilities, and the workplace on a range of protected grounds, including race, nationality, ethnic origin, and colour. The facts of this case squarely engage multiple provisions under the Acts, particularly in relation to direct discrimination, racial harassment, and employer liability for the actions of staff.”
This case as set out was misconceived as the Complainant is an employee and prior to dismissing the claim the Complainant was given an opportunity to amend their claim.
On the 15th of July 2024 in another written submission the complaint was reframed as follows:
- a. Harassment – Section 14A Under Section 14A of the Employment Equality Acts, harassment is defined as any unwelcome conduct related to a relevant discriminatory ground that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment. The Complainant contends that the ongoing acts of bullying, aggression, and targeted hostility by his colleague, Mr. Satya Jatta, were related, at least in part, to his race, or ethnic background, or were treated with indifference because of it. The Respondent failed to act when notified, thereby facilitating the creation of a toxic and hostile work environment. In particular: • Mr. Jatta’s repeated confrontational behaviour included mocking the Complainant’s accent and background in front of others, as well as using demeaning language with racial undertones. • The harassment was not an isolated event, but a sustained pattern that persisted over time and escalated in hostility. • Even after the Complainant raised these issues, no formal anti-harassment or disciplinary measures were taken, and the alleged harasser was allowed to remain working in close proximity to the Complainant, thereby prolonging the hostile environment. The inaction by the Respondent is particularly serious given that employers have a positive duty to prevent and address harassment once they are on notice of it. In this case, the employer failed to take adequate steps to investigate or prevent further harm, despite being alerted to the issue on multiple occasions.
In another submission received on the 13th of October 2025 the Complainant alleges the following:
2.8 On one occasion, the Complainant escalated the matter to the site supervisor, Mr. Balkrishna Sunnassy, explaining in detail the ordeal he had endured at the hands of Mr. Jatta. It was only at this stage that the Respondent took limited action by moving Mr. Jatta away from the Complainant’s unit. While this provided some short-term relief, by then significant damage had already been done to the Complainant’s dignity, health, and career prospects. 2.9 The Complainant therefore brings this claim to vindicate his rights under the Employment Equality Acts, to obtain redress for the harm suffered, and to ensure that the Respondent is held accountable for failing to take appropriate action to prevent harassment and discriminatory conduct within the workplace
The Complainant gave sworn evidence that he felt bullied and that his employer did nothing about it and the straw that broke the camel’s back was when a colleague slammed a door while he was on the phone.
The alleged perpetrator a work colleague was called and gave evidence. The Complainant was on a call to his wife, and his voice was travelling and loud. The door was held open by a stopper and the work colleague removed the stopper. That is not abusive conduct. The complaint was made to a supervisor and in turn to a manager. The manager in the interest of good working relations separated the two employees and that minimises contact between the two work colleagues. On the facts there is no merit in this case. The basic elements go ground a discrimination claim are not present and the entire factual matrix is about one colleagues sensitivity to a door being closed.
The Complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination as on the facts no inference of discrimination arises.
While the Respondent argued that the claim was not sufficiently detailed and should be dismissed on the papers ; however, the law is clear that a case should be heard if it is possible, where claim could be made out if the facts at their height are assumed to be true.
Insufficient Particulars or failure to provide sufficient detail:
By analogy in Court civil proceedings a case will be dismissed or struck out if sufficient detail is not provided concerning the wrong alleged against the Respondent:
I note in Delaney and McGrath (4th Ed 2018 Round Hall)
5-82
An example of a case where sufficient particulars of negligence were not provided is Mitchell v Arthurs.188 The plaintiff workman sued for damages arising out of the fall of bricks from scaffolding and pleaded that the defendant “so carelessly, negligently, and unskilfully erected the scaffolding, that a large number of bricks fell on the plaintiff”. The statement of claim was struck out as embarrassing on the basis that it merely made a general plea of negligence and failed to specify the particular defects in the scaffolding of which complaint was made.
I also note in Civil Proceedings Delaney and McGrath cite:
If a party is not satisfied that sufficient particulars of his opponent’s claim have been given, the proper course of action is to bring a motion to compel replies rather than a motion to strike out the pleading on the ground that it fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action pursuant Order 19 rule 28: Tromso Sparebank v Beirne, High Court (Costello J), 14 March 1988.
I note that in ISS Limited v Zhivko Mitsov (DWT1159) the Court stated that there is no provision in the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 as amended to serve a notice for particulars. While I accept that proposition, a tribunal can set procedures that are fair which would include the right for a party to provide further or better particulars. That is what happened in this case and the Complainant was given an opportunity to amend their complaint form and resubmit the complaint on several occasions. The facts detailed in that complaint form have not changed and it is a case of alleged bullying that has changed to a claim for discrimination.
This is a case where the facts have not changed; the Complainant has ticked boxes on a form because he believes he was treated badly by his employer. That does not amount to discrimination and on the evidence the Employer has acted reasonably. The Respondent has repeatedly asked for details to show how the complaint is about discrimination. On balance I have decided to hear evidence to ascertain if a prima facie case has been made out.
Dispute Procedures Flexible/Informal:
I also note that In County Louth Vocational Educational Committee v the Equality Tribunal and Pearse Brannignan [2016] IESC 40 2016 Mr. Justice John MacMenamin, the Court stated that:
Consideration
- It is well established that the purpose of a deciding body or tribunal, such as the respondent Tribunal, is to provide speedy and effective redress in cases of alleged discrimination. It is not in dispute the procedures employed may be both informal and flexible. It is true, as Mr. Gerard Durcan, S.C., counsel for the Tribunal, submits, that the range of claimants before such a Tribunal do not fit into any one category. They may or may not be legally represented and, therefore, flexibility is both warranted and necessary.
In this case the Complainant is a lay-litigant therefore flexibility should be exercised in so far as that flexibility is merited and is fair to both parties.
Dismiss Claim as Misconceived:
I also note as cited in Delaney and McGrath that the Superior Courts have clarified when claims in the courts should be dismissed as misconceived:
Basis on which the Jurisdiction Will Be Exercised
16-06
It is well-established that the jurisdiction conferred by Order 19, rule 28 is exercisable by reference to the pleadings only. In McCabe v Harding11 O'Higgins CJ stressed that, in order for rule 28 to apply, “vexation or frivolity must appear from the pleadings alone”, a point that was reiterated by Costello J in Barry v Buckley,12 who stated that “the court can only make an order under this rule when a pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action on its face”. This basic principle was reaffirmed by Costello J in D.K. v King,13 where he stated that rule 28 only applies where it can be shown that the text of the plaintiff’s summons or statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action or that the action is frivolous or vexatious. So, for the purposes of considering whether to accede to an application based on rule 28, the court should consider the pleadings14 only, ignoring any affidavit evidence filed,15 and further must proceed on the basis that any statements of fact contained in the pleading sought to be struck out are true and can be proved by the party.16 Clarke J made it clear in Salthill Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc17 that “the court must accept the facts as asserted in the plaintiff’s claim, for if the facts so asserted are such that they would, if true, give rise to a cause of action then the proceedings do disclose a potentially valid claim.” As Baker J stated in Wilkinson v Ardbrook Homes Ltd,18 the approach of the court should be “to ask whether the plaintiff could possibly succeed on the case as pleaded and in the light of the facts asserted, and only if it is satisfied that a plaintiff could not possibly establish those facts, or could not possibly succeed on the pleadings, should the proceedings be struck out.”
I have decided that based on the case law the case should not be dismissed as misconceived as I cannot conclude that a plaintiff could not possibly establish facts or could not possibly succeed on the pleadings. To dismiss on the pleadings or on the complaint form is an exception and only if the test as laid down by the Superior Courts is met. I now turn to whether a prima facie case of discrimination has been made out by the Complainant.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
“My name is Sikiru Ajibola. I started working in Securitas on the 12th of February 2020. I would like to report a case of bullying by a staff of Securitas. This has been an on-going event which first started on September 2023. On that day I was on a night shift at Amazon Dub 14 (my workplace) when the first case of bullying by Mr Satya Jatta a colleague occurred. Following the incident, the campus coordinator officer (Mr Isaac Olatunde) called me on phone to address the issue, but no reasonable step was taken to stop the bullying as Mr Jatta continued to bully me at my workplace. I could not bear the bullying anymore as I was emotionally traumatised, so I reported the issue to Securitas campus management but surprisingly, there was no response from them, and no reasonable step has been taken to stop such bullying attitude. The bullying continued and on the 15th of March 2024 the bullying was so bad that I suffered emotional, psychological and mental stress for days. On that day the security officer left his position which was Dub 21 and came directly to my assigned position and bullied and harassed me verbally. After abusing me, he slammed the security room door aggressively which caused serious alarm in the building. I felt so terrified and feared for my life. Despite reporting the incident to the management and despite the fact that the whole incident was caught on camera, nothing has been done to prevent future occurrence. My employer has shown no concern about the continuous bullying by the same staff despite all my complaints to the management, instead they continuously put me and Mr Jatta on the same shift without any measures in place to stop him from bullying, harassing and intimidating me.” |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Complainant stated that no ground has been made out to support a claim of discrimination and sought to dismiss the complaint as misconceived. The Complainant cannot make out a claim of discrimination based on the facts that he has detailed or on the evidence, he gave at the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have decided that based on the case law the case should not be dismissed as misconceived as I cannot conclude that a plaintiff could not possibly establish facts or could not possibly succeed on the pleadings. To dismiss on the pleadings or on the complaint form is an exception and only if the test as laid down by the Superior Courts is met. I now turn to whether a prima facie case of discrimination has been made out by the Complainant. Prima Facie: The Prima Facie testis not an onerous test. It requires some facts that tend to show the possibility of discrimination. It is not a probative burden. In Mitchell v Southern Health Board, DEEO11 the Labour Court held that a ‘claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the primary facts on which to rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination.’ And in McCarthy v Cork City Council EDA0821 ‘that at the initial stage the complainant is merely seeking to establish a prima facie case. Hence it is not necessary to establish that the conclusion of discrimination is the only, or indeed the most likely, explanation which can be drawn from the proved facts. It is sufficient that the presumption is within the range of inferences which can reasonably be drawn from those facts.’ I note that in Murdoch and Hunt 2021 Edition Bloomsbury Prima Facie is defined as: [Of first appearance]. On the face of it; a first impression. A prima facie case is one in which there is sufficient evidence in support of a party’s charge or allegation to call for an answer from his opponent. If a prima facie case has not been made out, the opponent may, without calling any evidence himself, submit that there is no case to answer, whereupon the case may be dismissed. The principle in discrimination litigation is that once a Claimant establishes a prima facie case of discrimination the onus shifts to the Respondent, who must prove that no discrimination has occurred. And the Court of Appeal England and Wales in Igen v Wong EWCA/Civ/2005 stated that the claimant must ‘prove on the balance of probabilities facts from which the tribunal could conclude, [this does not mean must prove on the balance of probabilities] in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the employer has committed an act of discrimination against the claimant.’ It is also the case that the Labour Court in Melbury Developments Ltd v Valpeters EDA 1728 has held that membership of a protected group and evidence of adverse treatment is not sufficient to shift the burden of proof in a direct discrimination case, there must be a causal link between the ground and treatment. However, a difference in treatment can meet this test, In Brunnhofer, for instance, the CJEU held that where a female worker proves that the pay she receives from her employer is less than that of a male colleague and that they both perform the same work or work of equal value, she is prima facie the victim of discrimination.28 (the European Equality Law Review 2019/2 The Burden of Proof in Anti-Discrimination Proceedings,Judgment of 26 June 2001, Susanna Brunnhofer v Bank der österreichischen Postsparkassse AG, C-381/99, para. 58) There are no facts presented by the Complainant that tend to show that he received less favourable treatment arising from any of the grounds detailed in the Act. Harassment: The Employment Equality Act 1998 as amended defines harassment at section 14 A as: (7) (a) In this section— (i) references to harassment are to any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds, and (ii) references to sexual harassment are to any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, being conduct which in either case has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person. (b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material. I note that in Employment Equality Law 2nd ed (Bolger, Bruton and Kimber) Round Hall Press the scope of harassment is defined and also under the Act what constitutes harassment, importantly it can be a single event. It is important to remember that the scope of harassment on a protected ground is an act which subjects a person to unwanted conduct on any of the protected discriminatory grounds, for example, sexual harassment, religious harassment or racial harassment. The Employment Equality Acts do not apply to a generalised bullying or harassment which has no link to the discriminatory grounds. In addition, the definition of bullying which has been accepted by the Supreme Court and High Court refers to “repeated inappropriate behaviour” and specifically excludes a single event. There is no similar requirement in the definition of harassment or sexual harassment in the Employment Equality Acts. Therefore, a single complaint of harassment or sexual harassment can breach the Acts. There is no evidence that in fact a colleague bullied or harassed the complainant never mind bullied or harassed him on a protected ground as detailed in the Act. I dismiss the complaint as the Complainant cannot make out a prima facie case of discrimination on the facts that he detailed in his submissions and or on the sworn evidence he gave at the hearing. There is no evidence of harassment, bullying or any less favourable treatment on any protected ground set down in the Act. I find that the Complainant was not discriminated against and find that no prima facie case has been made out. The complaint is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 82 of the Act.
I find that the Complainant was not discriminated against and find that no prima facie case has been made out. The complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 21st October 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Brian Dalton
Key Words:
Prima Facie Test |