A Muslim security guard who alleged a colleague at the National Gallery of Ireland slipped rashers into his bag when he left it in a locker room has failed in a claim for racial and religious discrimination.
Statutory complaints by the worker, Rana Shaheer Ebrahim, alleging breaches of the Employment Equality Act 1998 by the National Gallery of Ireland and staffing agency Osborne Recruitment, have been rejected by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
Adjudication officer Niamh O’Carroll wrote that she had a “serious concern about the authenticity of the forms submitted into evidence by the complainant”.
Gallery management told the WRC at a hearing last summer Mr Ebrahim was let go early from a temporary contract in May 2024 over “persistent punctuality issues”.
READ MORE
Mr Ebrahim had been rostered to work 35 shifts and turned up late to 11 of them, a manager said in evidence.
Despite the fact that Mr Ebrahim had been placed on a performance improvement plan and had filled out multiple lateness forms, the National Gallery had no record that he raised any alleged discrimination before he lost his job.
Mr Ebrahim was placed at the National Gallery of Ireland by staffing agency Osborne Recruitment, and started work on March 8th, 2024, to cover a four-month contract as an attendant-grade security officer which was meant to run until July 7th that year, the WRC heard.
Giving evidence with the assistance of an Urdu interpreter at a hearing in June this year, Mr Ebrahim said that on April 3rd, 2024, around three-and-a-half weeks into his employment, he was allegedly subjected to a racial slur.
By then, he told the commission, he had been pulled up by his supervisors over lateness a number of times, and had filled out forms recording the incidents. He told the commission there had been issues with the functioning of his access card.
“One of my colleagues in the locker room, one of them shouted the n-word. I reported this complaint on the lateness form, and verbally,” Mr Ebrahim said.
“You’re going to have to say it,” Ms O’Carroll told him.
“N****r,” the complainant said. “I was the only person of colour in the room, he added.
“When the person who shouted that was leaving, [I noticed] my locker, the lock was broken. I was trying to get my stuff from the back,” Mr Ebrahim continued.
“There were loads of colleagues changing, heading out at the end of the shift ... I saw my bag, I opened the zip ... there was a red stain on the bag, I disposed of the stained bag outside of the gallery, it was a schoolbag, a backpack,” he said.
He said he found pork in the bag – “rashers, pieces or something”. His evidence was that he considered the presence of the pork rashers “highly offensive”, as the alleged incident happened during the Islamic festival of Ramadan that year, which he was observing.
Ms O’Carroll asked the complainant whether he had invoked the company grievance process over what happened. Mr Ebrahim said he had not, nor had he read his contract of employment.
His evidence was that he reported it “verbally” to Paul Irwin, his supervisor, the following day, and asked to be provided with security footage but was told there was no coverage of the locker room.
He said he raised it as an issue again when he was required to fill out another lateness form that day he said.
Mr Ebrahim said he again reported the alleged incident during a review meeting on April 22nd that year – when he had been given a warning about “lateness and smoking on duty”.
His employment was terminated on May 8th, two months into his four-month contract, the tribunal heard.
The adjudicator, Ms O’Carroll, noted that Mr Ebrahim had “produced documentation and evidence at the hearing ... which suggested that he had raised the issue of the discrimination by way of the late forms”.
However, Eoin O’Donnell, head of human resources at the National Gallery, said its management was challenging the credibility of versions of lateness forms submitted in evidence by Mr Ebrahim.
He said the gallery had “no records” of Mr Ebrahim reporting anything to do with either “pork in a bag” or the n-word. “All he’d have to do is say it to one member [of staff] here and it would be acted on. All our staff are trained,” he said.
In her decision, Ms O’Carroll wrote that she had a “serious concern about the authenticity of the forms submitted into evidence by the complainant”.
She decided to exclude them from consideration, and concluded there was “no evidence” of the sort of discriminatory behaviour the claimant had alleged.
Ms O’Carroll wrote that since Mr Ebrahim had failed to establish a presumption of discrimination on the grounds of race or religion, “the complaint fails”.
