Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Oleg Vysotskyi

Securitas Security Services Ireland

Representatives

Represented Himself

Danny Ryan BL

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00071828-001

23/05/2025

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

CA-00072350-001

11/06/2025

The complainant transferred from G4S Security Services on March 24th 2012 and commenced employment with the respondent.  His terms and conditions of employment were governed by the terms of the Employment Regulation Order (ERO) for the Security Industry.

In March 2025, the respondent lost the contract to provide a security service at a premises where the complainant and two other security officers were assigned to work in Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin.  A document submitted in evidence shows that, on March 21st, the complainant was advised that his employment was transferring to MCR on April 21st 2025 and that his terms and conditions were protected.  He was asked to sign a consent form to indicate his consent for his personnel details to be provided to MCR.  Another document shows that the complainant informed the HR department that he didn’t want to transfer to MCR and that he applied for a job with the respondent.  On April 30th, he signed the consent form to agree to the transfer of his file to MCR.

On May 23rd 2025, the complainant submitted the first of the above complaints to the WRC.  He claimed that he was dismissed by the respondent and that his dismissal was unfair.  In his evidence at the hearing, he said that he transferred to MCR on May 25th 2025, two days after he submitted this complaint.

For around 10 years, the complainant was assigned as a security officer to a multinational electronics company in south Dublin.  He was moved from that site in 2023.  He claims that this occurred because he allowed a woman to use a toilet on the premises.  On June 11th 2025, he submitted a complaint to the WRC about his removal from the electronics site.  He said that he was moved from one site to another and that he frequently didn’t get breaks.  On his day off, he said that he was called at 5.00am to be at a site at 7.00am.

CA-00071828-001:  Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

I reviewed the documents submitted by Mr Ryan in advance of the hearing of this complaint.  I am satisfied that, on April 21st 2025, the complainant transferred to MCR in accordance with the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 (TUPE).  I accept the complainant’s evidence that he wanted to remain with the respondent.  I note from the documents submitted by Mr Ryan that, for a few days at the end of April 2025, the complainant operated under an assumption that he had been dismissed; however, it is apparent that he was rostered for work by MCR from May 21st 2025.  He said that he continued in employment with that company until January 6th 2026.

I am satisfied that the respondent did not dismiss the complainant, and that he transferred his employment to MCR in accordance with the TUPE regulations.

CA-00072350-001:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

The complaint under this heading concerns the fact that the complainant’s work location was changed in 2023, and his assertion that this caused some inconvenience to him and that sometimes he didn’t get a break.

Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act provides that:

Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.

Subsection 8 provides that I may extend the timeframe to 12 months, if the complainant demonstrates that there is reasonable cause for the delay.

As this complaint was submitted to the WRC on June 11th 2025, the timeframe for which I have authority to conduct an investigation is the six months from December 12th 2024 until June 11th 2025.  If the complainant had applied for an extension of the time limit, I have authority to extend the timeframe to between June 12th 2024 and June 11th 2025.

It is apparent that the substantive issue about which the complainant has a grievance is his move from the electronics company in 2023.  He claims that the effect of the move was that his assignments became irregular and he went from place to place, incurring travel costs and inconvenience.  Due to the fact that he submitted this complaint more than 12 months after the event, I have no authority to open an investigation into the issue.

Considering the question of breaks, the respondent’s workforce is highly regulated, being governed by the terms of the ERO for the Security Industry.  A document submitted by Mr Ryan shows that the start and end time of breaks are recorded on daily activity reports.  I am satisfied that, in the period from December 12th 2024, until April 21st 2025, when he transferred to MCR, the complainant was not prevented from taking breaks during his shifts.

CA-00071828-001:  Complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977

The complainant was not dismissed and I decide therefore, that his complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 is not well founded.

CA-00072350-001:  Complaint under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997

As this complaint concerns an issue that arose in 2023 it is outside the timeframe for which I have authority to conduct an investigation.  I decide therefore that the complaint is not well founded.

Dismissal, TUPE, time limits