ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007236

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30th March 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Procedure:

On the 17^th February 2017, the complainant referred a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act. This complaint bears the reference CA-00009779-001 and is the subject of ADJ-00007236.

On the 30^th November 2016, the complainant also referred complaints against the same respondent to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Payment of Wages Act and the Industrial Relations Act. These complaints bear the reference CA-00008530-002 and CA-00008530-003 and are the subject of ADJ-00006324.

All complaints were scheduled for adjudication on the 30^th March 2017. The complainant attended the adjudication and was represented by James Flanagan, BL. Peninsula Business Services represented the respondent and four witnesses attended to give evidence. They are referred to in this report as the Appeal Manager, the Branch Manager, the Technical Manager and the Sales Representative.

In accordance with Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, 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:

The complainant commenced his employment with the respondent on the 12^th October 2015 and this came to an end on the 13^th July 2016. He was paid €2,916.67 per month gross. He asserts that he was dismissed following making a protected disclosure and seeks redress under the Unfair Dismissals Act.

Preliminary issues: time and protected disclosure

Submissions of the complainant

In respect of the preliminary issues, the complainant outlined that the basis of the claim was that he made a verbal protected disclosure to the Branch Manager on the 27^th May 2016 and subsequently suffered penalisation by being dismissed from his employment. The complainant outlined that the disclosure related to issues arising from the payment of overtime and the hours worked by the complainant. While the complainant had less than one years’ service with the respondent, the complaint made pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act should continue as the dismissal was wholly or mainly due to his protected disclosure.

The first complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission were lodged on the 30^th November 2016 and he sought on that occasion to advance a claim pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Acts. As the complainant had recorded less than one year’s service, the complaint form automatically classified the claim as one made pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act. It did not permit a complainant with less than one year’s service to advance a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act, even in circumstances where the Act lifts the service requirement on a complainant. This includes complaints of unfair dismissal where it is asserted that the dismissal was wholly or mainly due to the making a protected disclosure. The complainant outlined that the second complaint was lodged when it was realised from follow-up correspondence issued by the WRC that the first complaint had been registered as an Industrial Relations claim.

The complainant outlined that he had raised issues regarding his overtime and that the protected disclosure related to the offence of not maintaining working time records. He raised with the Branch Manager that hours were not being recorded and he received an angry response from him. This failure to record amounted to an offence and he was being required to work longer hours. The complainant relied on section 5(3)(a) of the Protected Disclosures Act and said that this protected disclosure fell within this subsection as it related to the commission of an offence. He said that he had not used the word “offence” in the conversation of the 27^th May 2016.

Submissions of the respondent

The respondent denied that the issues raised by the complainant amount to a protected disclosure, and said that there were grievances. It referred to the Code of Practice on Protected Disclosures and the difference between a protected disclosure and a grievance. It further submitted that the claim of unfair dismissal was out-of-time as it was made more than six months from the date of dismissal. It referred to the letter from the Workplace Relations Commission of the 13^th February 2017 which made it clear that the first complaint was being dealt with as an Industrial Relations claim. It submitted that the first time the issue of records had been raised was after the dismissal and in the letter of the 19^th July 2016. This still did not amount to a protected disclosure.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent denies the claims. It asserts that the complainant was out-of-time in making his complaint and that he did not have 12 months’ service with the respondent. It did not accept that the complainant had made a protected disclosure and asserted that the complainant’s dismissal had been substantively and procedurally fair.

The Appeal Manager gave evidence. He said that the complainant was dismissed because of the unacceptable gesture he made. He could not accept this. Referring to his letter of the 6^th July 2016, he had not taken account of the overtime grievance in deciding to confirm the dismissal. There was no issue in paying the complainant what was owed in overtime once he submitted the relevant time sheets. In respect of the meeting of the 3^rd June 2016, he had spoken with a witness to confirm that the complainant had fallen asleep at the meeting and made a rude gesture on being woken up. This was giving the “finger” to the Technical Manager who had woken him up. The dismissal was justified as he could not accept that a staff member would make such a rude gesture to his boss; not to dismiss would lead to chaos with no discipline.

In cross-examination, it was put to the Appeal Manager that time sheets had only been provided in February 2016; he did not know if this was the case. The Appeal Manager acknowledged that the complainant had apologised for making the gesture. It was put to him that the rude gesture fell within the scope of ‘major misconduct’ of the respondent’s disciplinary procedure as it was insulting behaviour; the Appeal Manager replied to say that he had regard to this document and he categorised the gesture as gross misconduct. He said that the examples of major misconduct were not an exhaustive list. He was asked whether the complainant had been given credit for owning up and whether his previous clean record had been considered; he replied that they had a friendly conversation during the course of the appeal hearing and that this one incident was sufficient to warrant dismissal. It was put to the Appeal Manager that there was a link between the overtime issue and the dismissal as he was dismissed one week after making a complaint regarding overtime; he accepted that the overtime issue had been discussed at the appeal hearing and that all overtime due would be paid. Overtime had to be approved. In respect of the photograph issue raised in the disciplinary process, the Appeal Manager described this as “peanuts” and he had not taken account of this issue in making his decision. The Appeal Manager identified the three people he spoke to other than the complainant, including the Branch Manager and the Technical Manager. He agreed that the complainant had not been present at these conversations and could not challenge their evidence.

The Technical Manager gave evidence. He said that the respondent hired out heavy plant equipment. The complainant commenced on the 12^th October 2015 as a service engineer to repair and inspect equipment on their return to the respondent. It was a salary based role and overtime was not normally paid. He said that there could be occasions when an employee might have to work 5 or 10 minutes after 5.30pm. Machines would normally go out first thing in the morning and those being collected would be picked up during the day. The complainant had asked to work one particular Saturday as he had wanted to take a Tuesday off for an appointment and he did so. In respect of other Saturdays, the respondent provided a call service to repair machines in an emergency. One member of staff regularly did this role and the respondent asked the complainant to cover this colleague’s annual leave for Saturday, 22^nd May 2016. The complainant provided this cover and it was in filling in his time-sheet for this call-out that he raised his entitlement to overtime. There was no issue with the Saturday call-out and he referred the complainant to the Branch Manager regarding other overtime. The Technical Manager said that every Friday, staff of the respondent attended a branch meeting and this provided a good exchange of information, including with the sales team. 12 or so staff would attend and they would discuss issues encountered during the week, for example the number of breakdowns. During the meeting of the 3^rd June 2016, the Technical Manager was coming back into the room after signing in for a delivery when he observed the complainant asleep and woke him up, saying “wakey wakey”. The complainant opened his eyes and gave him the finger. The complainant then closed his eyes. Everyone at the meeting saw this. The Technical Manager attended the disciplinary meeting of the 8^th June 2016 and the complainant never raised the issues of the time sheets or his overtime. He did not mention the failure to keep records.

In cross-examination, the Technical Manager said that it was practice at interviews to say that the respondent does not generally pay overtime so as not to raise expectations. The payment of overtime had to be agreed. It was put to the Technical Manager that 10 machines could be returned after 4.30pm, requiring the complainant to inspect and repair them; he replied that this could not happen as the delivery company could not physically transport 10 machines. 4 or 5 machines could be delivered after 4.30pm. Every returning machine would be subject to an inspection process. It was put to the Technical Manager that the complainant accrued one hour’s overtime per week and he was entitled to €600; he replied that he was not responsible for time sheets as this was done by a named HR administrator. He managed annual leave and sick leave. In respect of hospital appointments, the complainant had taken time off or come in late on days when he attended hospital. The respondent did not require employees to clock in. In respect of the apology, the Technical Manager said that the complainant apologised at the disciplinary meeting and had not apologised to him in the course of the intervening week, when they were both at work. It was put to the Technical Manager that people attending the meeting of the 3^rd June 2016 had been sniggering at the complainant, making snoring noises; he replied that he did not know if this was the case as he had returned to the room. It was put to the Technical Manager that the context of the rude gesture was the complainant being snubbed at the meeting; he did not accept that the complainant had been snubbed. The Branch Manager had raised an issue of paint damage to a machine and the complainant had confirmed that they had to get the paint off.

The Branch Manager gave evidence. He managed two facilities in Ireland. The Technical Manager had raised the complainant’s overtime issue and that the complainant wished to claim other overtime. Time sheets were issued to staff to capture breaks and time worked. Prior to February 2016, they were issued but not returned. As the salary did not change according to the hours, it was thought to be less important to have the completed sheets returned. The Branch Manager met the complainant on the 27^th May 2016 and was then aware of the overtime issue. It was a quick meeting and he said that the respondent had no issue with paying approved overtime, but the respondent could not allow employees determine their own overtime. They discussed the issue of machines returning late and he gave solutions to address this. There was no roaring or shouting and it was not an angry meeting. He denied slamming the door and said that he returned to the hire desk after the meeting. The complainant had not mentioned records or an offence being committed. In respect of the meeting of the 3^rd June 2016, the Branch Manager said that he did not remember any slight made against the complainant. It had been a quick, comprehensive meeting. The paint issue was discussed. It was brought to his attention that the complainant had closed his eyes and lowered his head. He asked the Technical Manager to wake the complainant and the complainant then made the gesture to the Technical Manager. In respect of his letter of the 7^th June 2016, the Branch Manager included the April 2016 incident because there was a trend developing. It was the incident of the 3^rd June 2016 that was the gross misconduct and not any trend. The complainant had not raised the overtime issue at the disciplinary meeting. In respect of the disciplinary outcome of the 8^th June 2016, the Branch Manager said that it was unacceptable for any member of staff to react in the way the complainant had. He considered this to be “gross misconduct” and not “major misconduct.” The disciplinary policy did not provide an exhaustive list of examples of gross misconduct. The overtime issue had not come into the Branch Manager’s mind. The issue of keeping records was only raised in the complainant’s letter of the 19^th July 2016.

In cross-examination, the Branch Manager accepted that the complainant had admitted the offence. It was put to him that the complainant had been smiling when making the gesture; he replied that he did not think that it was funny and could not recall if the complainant had been smiling. The complainant had been asleep at a work meeting and had then made the gesture. There was silence and shock in the room at the complainant’s behaviour. In respect of the meeting of the 27^th May 2016, the Branch Manager agreed that this had been an informal conversation and not a formal grievance. He did not wish for employees to set their own overtime. It was not normal to stay back for more than 5 or 10 minutes. It was put to the Branch Manager that the complainant was asked to stay and prepare machines for the following day and this was why he had to take overtime; he replied that overtime had to be formally approved and did not accept that the complainant had been asked to do so much work late in the day. He could not remember seeing the complainant on many occasions in work after 5.30pm. The Branch Manager was asked how the Appeal Manager could think that the overtime issue was only raised after the disciplinary meeting when it had been raised on the 27^th May 2016; he replied that overtime had not been discussed at the disciplinary hearing and the appeal manager had asked him about the events of the 3^rd June and the gesture. It was put to the Branch Manager that the complainant’s behaviour arose because of how he had treated the complainant on the 27^th May and the 3^rd June 2016 and that he had blown the incident out of proportion in response to the overtime issue raised by the complainant; he did not accept this and said that the complainant had not been slighted at the meeting of the 3^rd June 2016. It was put to the Branch Manager that the disciplinary policy places rude and insulting behaviour in the major misconduct category; he begged to differ and said that the incident fell within gross misconduct. The lists of examples provided in the policy were not exhaustive. He had followed the policy and the behaviour fell within the category of indecent behaviour referred to in the examples of gross misconduct. He accepted that the disciplinary outcome letter does not refer to “indecent behaviour”. It was put to the Branch Manager that he had set the charges and heard the disciplinary hearing; he acknowledged writing the dismissal letter. He accepted that the April photograph incident was first raised after the June incident. It was put to the Branch Manager that there was a legal obligation to maintain working time records; he accepted that this was the case. Working time could be recorded on time sheets and the respondent was flexible. He was asked for the time sheets for October 2015 to February 2016; he said that there were no records. Time sheets should have been issued to all and the respondent HR administrator said that this had been done. The Branch Manager said that as far as he knew the complainant went home at 5.30pm every day and that he was not a key-holder. The Branch Manager denied that there had been incidents of him shouting at other staff.

The sales representative gave evidence. In May 2016, he had spoken with the complainant about his “terms and conditions” and had observed him looking through a file as he was waiting to get past. He did not know of the overtime issue and his comment had not referred to this. He could not recall any slight or sniggering at the meeting of the 3^rd June 2016. In cross-examination, he accepted that he had made the remark. In respect of the meeting of the 3^rd June 2016, he had been shocked at the incident and had not seen the complainant trying to laugh off the gesture.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant said that he had taken this role because his previous role had been 24/7 and involved a great deal of call. He had wanted a 5-day a week job with little overtime. This was for health reasons. He was shown flexibility in relation to attending hospital appointments. He was not given an instruction regarding filling in time sheets. There were no prior disciplinary issues and the April photograph issue was only raised in June 2016. He estimated that he worked between 1 hour and 90 minutes overtime per week in preparing machines that had been returned late that day. Some machines took time to clean and make ready, especially if they had been out for a while. He had been expected to complete these tasks and overtime had never been raised. He had never been given time sheets at the start of his employment with the respondent and they were provided in March 2016 after he raised this with the Technical Manager.

In respect of overtime, the complainant raised the issue with the Technical Manager. He replied that they did not pay overtime during the week and only paid it at the weekend. The complainant also approached the Branch Manager and received a very negative response. At the meeting of the 27^th May 2016, the Branch Manager shouted that the respondent did not pay overtime. The complainant showed the Branch Manager his contract and pointed to the reference to overtime. The Branch Manager then “threw the book at him”, saying that the complainant was only working there for 6 months and that he could delay the complainant’s rest break. The complainant said that he got dragged into a heated discussion. He offered to shake the Branch Manager’s hand and to call it a day, i.e. to acknowledge that they had both acted inappropriately. The Branch Manager slammed the door and told the complainant to sit down. The complainant then asked the Branch Manager to stop shouting and he got frustrated and walked out of the office. The events of the 27^th May 2016 took place over a period of 15 or 20 minutes. The complainant said that he carried on as normal and commented that he had no-one to complain to as this interaction had been with the top man. He stated that the concern he raised at this meeting was overtime not being recorded.

At the meeting of the 3^rd June 2016 the complainant had addressed the issue of one particular machine, stating that he had repaired and cleaned the paint off this machine. The Branch Manager had spoken over him and did not let him finish. The complainant had felt disrespected and the Branch Manager had no interest in hearing him. The complainant closed his eyes and lowered his head; he was not asleep and was still listening. He had meant this as a joke. While his eyes were closed, he could hear giggling and the mimicking of snoring sounds. He had not seen the gesture as a serious matter and the response of the respondent had been disproportionate. It could have been dealt with by a warning. In respect of the disciplinary process, the complainant said that he did not have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and that his evidence had not been controverted. He did not think it necessary to bring up the overtime issue during the disciplinary process. Since losing his employment with the respondent, the complainant had sought alternative employment but had not been able to find a job. He had also completed courses and was looking to diversify. He had been trained as a trainer to show people how to operate machines.

In cross-examination, the contents of the Hours of Work provision of the contract of employment were put to the complainant, in particular the need to get authorisation for overtime; he replied that he had been told to complete tasks so that machines were ready for the morning. The contents of the February 2016 time sheets were put to the complainant, in particular where he had not recorded working past 5.30pm; he replied that he had not recorded additional work done as he was making up for the flexibility shown to him. He had raised this when the additional time had extended to an hour per week and had made an issue of it when the overtime surpassed the time he had spent going to hospital appointments. It was only in March 2016 that they became more insistent on getting time sheets back. It was put to the complainant that his concerns had not related to records; he replied that at the meeting of the 27^th May 2016 he had raised his concern that the additional time expected of him was increasing and that he wanted to be paid for it. In respect of the meeting of the 3^rd June 2016, he said that the slight had not bothered him so he had not lodged a grievance. He had been dismissed because the respondent had not wanted to establish a precedent of paying overtime. It was put to the complainant that he had not raised this and the overtime issue at the disciplinary hearing; he said that he had not seen the disciplinary hearing as serious and he had only discussed the matter at hand. This was why he did not raise the overtime issue. He was also given short notice of the meeting and had no time to prepare. It was put to the complainant that his appeal of the 16^th June 2016 was the first reference to overtime; he replied that he had been trying to understand the basis of the dismissal and had since worked out the reason. It was put to the complainant that the first reference to records had been in his letter of the 19^th July 2016, everything before had been about payment; he replied that he raised the issue of time sheets at the start of his employment. In respect of mitigation, the complainant said that he completed a 10-week night course and did not have copies of the job applications he had made. In redirection, the complainant said that he could not recall when he had first raised the records issue.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complainant was employed by the respondent as a Service Engineer from the 12^th October 2015 until his dismissal on the 13^th July 2016. The dismissal followed a disciplinary hearing and an appeal process. The complainant challenges the fairness of his dismissal. The respondent asserts that the dismissal was fair and that the complainant does not have the length of service to advance the complaint.

The dismissal took place on the 13^th July 2016 and the complaint was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on the 17^th February 2017. This is outside of the 6 month timeframe provided in section 8 the Unfair Dismissals Act. It is clear that at the time of his dismissal, the complainant had less than one year’s service with the respondent. He asserts that his dismissal was wholly or mainly due to the protected disclosure he made regarding working time records. Pursuant to section 6(2D), an employee who has made a protected disclosure regarding a relevant wrongdoing arising from their employment is not required to have one year’s service in order to refer a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts where they have been dismissed. The complainant gave evidence that on the first occasion he sought to refer a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission, the complaint form automatically categorised a complaint of unfair dismissal where the employee has less than one year’s service as one made pursuant to the Industrial Relations Acts. This is despite the statutory right of employees to refer such a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act where they have less than one year’s service. The complainant said that he later noted that the unfair dismissal aspect of his claim had been registered as an Industrial Relations dispute when he received correspondence from the Workplace Relations Commission. He then sought to refer a second complaint pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act.

I find that the complainant has shown reasonable cause for the late submission of the complaint that both explains and excuses the timing of the complaint on the 17^th February 2017. I accept his evidence that the WRC complaint form would not allow him advance a claim pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act because he had less than one year’s service at the time of his initial application in late November 2016. I note that the WRC complaint form is a dynamic online document that has been adjusted over time to address technical issues in the light of the complexity of the 50 or so pieces of legislation falling within its adjudication remit. I note that the complainant submitted the second application when he realised the issue arising with the first complaint. For the record, the issue with the WRC complaint form has been addressed in full as, for example, in February 2017, the complainant was able to lodge a complaint pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act while recording that he had less than one year’s service. Taking these circumstances together, I find that the complainant has established reasonable cause to allow the claim of unfair dismissal to proceed.

The next issue to address is whether the complainant has made a protected disclosure. Section 5 of the Protected Disclosures Act provides the following definition of a protected disclosure:

“5. (1) For the purposes of this Act “protected disclosure” means, subject to subsection (6) and sections 17 and 18, a disclosure of relevant information (whether before or after the date of the passing of this Act) made by a worker in the manner specified in section 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 .

(2) For the purposes of this Act information is “relevant information” if—

(a) in the reasonable belief of the worker, it tends to show one or more relevant wrongdoings, and

(b) it came to the attention of the worker in connection with the worker’s employment.

(3) The following matters are relevant wrongdoings for the purposes of this Act—

(a) that an offence has been, is being or is likely to be committed,

(b) that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation, other than one arising under the worker’s contract of employment or other contract whereby the worker undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services,

(c) that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,

(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,

(e) that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged,

(f) that an unlawful or otherwise improper use of funds or resources of a public body, or of other public money, has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,

(g) that an act or omission by or on behalf of a public body is oppressive, discriminatory or grossly negligent or constitutes gross mismanagement, or

(h) that information tending to show any matter falling within any of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be concealed or destroyed.

…

(7) The motivation for making a disclosure is irrelevant to whether or not it is a protected disclosure.

(8) In proceedings involving an issue as to whether a disclosure is a protected disclosure it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that it is.”

Section 5 imposes a presumption that a disclosure is a protected disclosure unless the contrary is proven. It provides that the complainant must have a “reasonable belief” and that the wrongdoing came to their attention in connection with their employment. It provides a list of relevant wrongdoings. Even where an employer acts unlawfully, this will not fall within the ambit of a relevant wrongdoing if it solely relates to a legal obligation arising from a contract of employment or of service. In this case, the complainant asserts that he falls within the scope of section 5(3)(a), i.e. where an offence has been, is being or is likely to be committed. The offence in question is the failure of the respondent to comply with section 25 of the Organisation of Working Time Act and the preservation of working time records. Section 25 provides as follows:

               (1) An employer shall keep, at the premises or place where his or her employee                works or, if the employee works at two or more premises or places, the premises or                place from which the activities that the employee is employed to carry on are                principally directed or controlled, such records, in such form, if any, as may be                prescribed, as will show whether the provisions of this Act and, where applicable,                the Activities of Doctors in Training Regulations are being complied with in                relation to the employee and those records shall be retained by the employer for at                least 3 years from the date of their making.

               (2) The Minister may by regulations exempt from the application of subsection (1)                any specified class or classes of employer and regulations under this subsection                may provide that any such exemption shall not have effect save to the extent that                specified conditions are complied with.                (3) An employer who, without reasonable cause, fails to comply with subsection (1)                shall be guilty of an offence…”

It is clear from the evidence that the complainant raised complaints about the time after 5.30pm he had to spend attending to machines, in particular machines returning from long periods of hire. He says that he had to stay on to do this work so that the machines were available the following morning. The respondent does not accept that the complainant had to remain in work beyond 5.30pm to any significant extent and in any event, overtime must be approved by the respondent in order to be paid. It is clear that the complainant raised the issue of his overtime at the meeting with the Branch Manager of the 27^th May 2016. The complainant also raises the overtime issue in the appeal letter sent to the Appeal Manager in or around the 16^th June 2016. The evidence of the respondent witnesses was that the first mention of an offence was the complainant’s letter of the 19^th July 2016, after his dismissal.

Having considered the oral and written evidence of the parties, I find that this complaint does not fall within the ambit of section 5(3)(a) of the Protected Disclosures Act. I appreciate that the complainant had moved to the respondent from a role with intense call demands. He was concerned that his role with the respondent would slip into a pattern of regular overtime. It is certainly the case that the complainant and the respondent, in particular the Branch Manager and Technical Manager, discussed his overtime. This, however, is a matter that squarely falls within the scope of his contract of employment. Even if the respondent had acted in breach of his contract of employment, this is a matter excluded by the section 5(3)(b) and in particular the words “other than one arising under the worker’s contract of employment or other contract whereby the worker undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services”. While the overtime issue was raised in May 2016 and during the appeal, the first mention of there being “an offence” was the letter of the 19^th July 2016, after the dismissal was confirmed on appeal. It follows that the issues raised by the complainant while in employment cannot amount to a protected disclosure pursuant to section 5(3)(a). I find that the respondent has rebutted the presumption provided in section 5(8) of the Protected Disclosures Act. It follows from this conclusion that the complainant cannot rely on section 6(2D) of the Unfair Dismissals Act to advance a complaint where he has less than 12 months’ service. It further follows that it does not fall to address the substantive or procedural fairness of the dismissal.

Decision:

Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim.

CA-00009779-001

For the reasons outlined above, I find that the claim made pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act does not succeed as the complainant has less than 12 months’ service and the issues he raised with the respondent were not protected disclosures and do not fall within the ambit of section 6(2D) of the Unfair Dismissals Act.

Dated:   20^th July 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Kevin Baneham

Key Words:

Section 6(2D) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts

Section 5(3)(a) of the Protected Disclosures Act

Section 25 of the Organisation of Working Time Act