The WRC found that the termination of the complainant’s agency engagement was due to repeated lateness rather than race or religion, and that no prima facie case of discrimination was established.

The Complainant stated that he began work at the National Gallery of Ireland in March 2024 as agency security staff. On his first day he waited a long time for induction, was given only a second-hand shirt and blazer, and experienced repeated problems with his access card. He said the card failures caused late clock-ins, for which he completed lateness forms noting “card tap failure” and lack of breaks. He further alleged a serious incident in the locker room in April 2024, where a colleague shouted a racial slur and pork rashers were placed in his locker on the last day of Ramadan. He said he reported this verbally and raised it again on a lateness form. He believed he was treated less favourably than permanent staff and underpaid compared to his contract rate. He was told his engagement was ending in May 2024 and said the reason given was “lateness”, which he believed masked discrimination on grounds of race and religion.

The Respondent said the Complainant was engaged via an agency on a four-month temporary contract as an attendant-grade security worker from March to July 2024, terminable earlier. His duties involved front-of-house security and adherence to strict punctuality rules. Time and attendance records showed that, over about 35 rostered days, he arrived late on 11-12 occasions, roughly one third of his shifts. He completed lateness forms and attended a review in April, at which he accepted an improvement plan on timekeeping and smoking only in designated areas. At a further meeting in May with HR and the Operations Manager, he acknowledged punctuality problems and gave reasons such as oversleeping, transport issues and lack of motivation. The Respondent said he did not raise any discrimination or locker-room incidents at that time.

The Adjudicating Officer noted that the Complainant’s second claim had been withdrawn and considered only the discriminatory dismissal complaint. Applying the established burden of proof under the Employment Equality Acts, he found that the Complainant had not established primary facts from which discrimination on grounds of race or religion could be presumed. The lateness records, review meetings and warning correspondence supported the Respondent’s position that punctuality was the genuine reason for the termination of the temporary engagement. The Complainant’s lateness forms, which purported to record discrimination complaints, were not countersigned and conflicted with the Respondent’s originals; the Adjudicator expressed serious concern about their authenticity and excluded them. There was no contemporaneous evidence that the alleged racial incident or religious harassment had been reported or linked to the decision to terminate. Accordingly, no prima facie case was made out and the complaint failed.

Employers should ensure that induction, rostering and time-keeping systems are robust and consistent, especially where access cards and electronic clocking are used. When technical issues arise, they should be recorded, quickly resolved and, where appropriate, manually corrected in attendance records. Clear, written contracts and employee handbooks help manage expectations around start times, breaks, dress code and standards of conduct. Where attendance or performance concerns emerge, employers should follow a structured process. Namely, early informal feedback, written warnings where necessary, and agreed improvement plans. Temporary or agency staff should be managed to the same procedural standards as directly employed staff, and communication with the agency should be documented. Finally, all alleged incidents of bullying, harassment or discrimination, particularly those involving race or religion, must be treated as serious complaints.

The full case can be found here.