PDD181

Background

The Complainant is a long-term employee of the Respondent. it is the Complainant’s case that he has been victimised by the respondent for making protected disclosures. The Complainant lodged his claim with the WRC on the 14^thSeptember 2016. The Court decided to deal with the issue of time-limits as a preliminary issue. In Accordance with the Act the cognisable period is therefore 15^thMarch 2016 -14^thSeptember 2016. It falls to the Complainant in the first instance to identify a protected disclosure as defined in the Act within that period.

Complainant’s case

The Complainant identified a number of issues which he believed met the criteria of a protected disclosure over a prolonged period from 2006 to 2016 when he lodged his complaint. The issues identified related to minutes of a meeting and bullying and harassment in 2011, an alleged assault in 2015 an issue in 2006 following an article in a newspaper an attack on his good character and intimidation at a meeting in July 2016. The detriment he identified that he suffered related to the decline of his credit card, performance review downgraded, defamation, isolated in the workplace.

Respondent’s case

The Respondent has engaged in good faith with the complainant over a number of years to try and understand his issues and resolved them. They have been unsuccessful in this endeavour. The issues the Complainant raises are not protected disclosures as identified by the Act and even if they did meet the criteria they are historic issues. They did not arise in the cognisable period therefore the claim is out of time.

The applicable law

Section 5 of the Act defines a protected disclosure as:

5.(1) For the purposes of this Act “protected disclosure” means, subject tosubsection (6)andsections 17and18, 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 insection 6,7,8,9or10.

(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.

Discussion

The Complainant in his submission to the Court referenced a number of issues. The Court drew the Complainant’s attention to the definition of a protected disclosure set out in the Act and the requirement that the protected disclosure must occur within the cognisable period. The Court adjourned for a short period to allow the Complainant identify any such disclosure. When the hearing resumed, the Complainant was unable to identify any protected disclosure within the cognisable period.

For the reasons set out above the Court is satisfied that no protected disclosure was made during the cognisable period. The Complainant’s appeal cannot succeed and is dismissed. The decision of the Adjudication officer is affirmed.

The Court so determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
8 February 2018______________________
JDDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.