FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 42, A DISMISSAL OF CLAIM BY ADJUDICATION OFFICER PARTIES : NATIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES - AND - ROGER TERENCE TALLIS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S) ADJ-00011044 CA-00014782-001
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 14 September2018. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13 November2018. The following is the Determination of the Court:
DETERMINATION:
Background to the Appeal
This is Mr Roger Terence Tallis’s (‘the Complainant’) appeal of a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00011044, dated 3 August 2018) under the Criminal Justice Act 2011 (‘the Act’). The Complainant alleges that he was penalised by his former employer, National Support Services Limited (‘the Respondent’) within the meaning of section 20 of the Act. The Adjudication Officer decided that the claim was not well-founded. The Complainant’s Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 13 September 2018. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 13 November 2018.
The Complainant was employed as a part-time cleaner by the Respondent from 19 September 2016 until his employment was terminated on 13 April 2017. He submits that the termination of his employment was as a direct consequence of remarks that he made to a representative of his employer’s client on whose behalf he was performing his cleaning role. Those remarks concerned the activities of a security guard employed by a different third-party contractor who was providing services to the same client. The Complainant told the Court that he had suggested to the client’s representative that the security operative may have been selling cannabis to the groups of youth with whom he appeared to frequently fraternise.
The Respondent denies the Complainant was penalised and submits that there is no connection between its decision to terminate his employment during his probationary period and the remarks he made about the security guard. They say that the Complainant was dismissed because he persistently underperformed in his role during the probationary period and the matter of his unsatisfactory performance had been addressed with him by his supervisors on a number of occasions. The Respondent also submits that the claim is misguided as it does not come within the parameters of section 20 of the Act.
The Law
Section 20 of the Act provides:
20.— (1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an
employee, or cause or permit any other person to penalise or threaten penalisation
against an employee—
(a) for making a disclosure or for giving evidence in relation to such disclosure in
any proceedings relating to a relevant offence, or
(b) for giving notice of his or her intention to do so.
Disclosure for the purposes of s.20(1) “means a disclosure by the employee to a member of the Garda Sίochάna of information which he or she knows or believes might be of material assistance in – (a) preventing the commission by any other person of a relevant offence, or (b) securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any other person for a relevant offence”.
Schedule 1 to the Act lists the categories of ‘relevant offences’ as follows: Offences relating to banking, investment of funds and other financial activities; Company law offences; Money laundering and terrorist offences; Theft and fraud offences; Bribery and corruption offences; Consumer protection offences; Criminal damage to property offences.
Application of the Law to the Facts.
The Complainant did not make a disclosure to a member of an Garda Sίochάna nor did he give notice of his intention to do so. The matter he raised with the client’s representative about the security guard does not relate to a relevant offence within the meaning of the Act. It follows that the Complainant does not have a stateable cased under the Act.
Decision
For the reasons set out above the appeal fails.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
14 November 2018______________________
THDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.