Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Accounts Executive

A Recycling Training and Development Company

Representatives

Ad'reme Solicitors

IBEC

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00023075-001

06/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00023075-002

06/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00023075-003

06/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00023075-004

06/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00023075-005

06/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00023075-006

06/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00023075-007

06/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00023075-008

06/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 45A of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946

CA-00023075-009

06/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00023075-010

06/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00023075-011

06/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00023075-012

06/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00023075-013

06/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

CA-00023075-014

06/11/2018

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 6(1) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2010

CA-00023075-015

06/11/2018

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in June 2006. She was employed as an Accounts/Administration Supervisor. She has raised a number of claims under various pieces of legislation. She further contends that she was constructively dismissed on 8 May 2018. At the commencement of the hearing, the following complaints were withdrawn by the complainant’s legal representative; CA-00023075-002, CA-00023075-003, CA-00023075-004, CA-00023075-005, CA-00023075-006, CA-00023075-008, CA-00023075-009, CA-00023075-011.

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent in June 2006. Her position was that of Accounts/Administration Supervisor. The complainant submits that in July 2012, Mr. M (CEO) sacked three managers, the Project Manager, the Operations Manager and the HR Manager and their duties were transferred to the complainant. The complainant submits that she experienced no increase in salary despite the additional job responsibilities. However, she performed the additional duties for over two years without any salary increase. The complainant states that in July 2012, she was promoted to the position of Financial Controller. The complainant states that in October 2015 she had a meeting with Mr. M and raised the following complaints (i) overload of work and under remuneration for same (ii) undermining of the complainant by Mr. M (iii) being denied her entitlements and favouritism to other staff (iv) additional workload of three managers. The complainant states that Mr. M said he would address the issues but failed to do so. The complainant states that she reported the unfair treatment and intimidatory treatment to the Secretary of the Board, Ms. L but matters got worse. The complainant states that she was contacted by Mr. M and was condemned for reporting the matter to a member of the Board.

The complainant states that in June 2017, she submitted an official memo by hand to Mr. M with a list of issues regarding unfair treatment. The complainant claims that Mr. M read the letter and tore it and shredded it and asked the complainant to leave his office. The complainant states that in October 2017 during a meeting, Mr. M informed the complainant that she had been demoted from the position of Financial Controller and Company Manager and he had employed another person who will now be in charge. The complainant was told to vacate her office for the new person and share an office with two other staff members and requested the complainant to cease attending Board meetings as the new person will be undertaking such duties.

The complainant states that she had a meeting with Mr. M on 6 November 2017. The complainant states that the €5000 per annum he had agreed the complainant should be paid as travel allowance should no longer be paid. The complainant states that in or about 8 November 2017, the complainant arrived at work and saw Mr. M showing another person around the company. The following day Mr. M said “Meet LB [my emphasis} who will be working in the company”. The complainant was not advised as to what duties Ms. B would be undertaking. Within a few days, Ms. B attended the complainant’s office and said she had come to sit with her in order to get a handle on the complainant’s tasks and duties. The complainant states that she refused and Ms. B reported the matter to Mr. M. Mr. M then summoned the complainant and instructed her to teach Ms. B all her duties and that she would be required to take instructions from Ms. B. The complainant states that a number of days later Ms. B stated that she and Mr. M had changed the complainant’s contract and henceforth, the complainant would be reporting to her.

The complainant states that in October 2017, Mr. M informed her that she was being demoted from her role as Financial Controller/Manager and that no formal terms of her new role were provided to the complainant at that time. In December 2017, the complainant states that she was provided with a copy of a new contract which stated that she would be on probation for six months. The complainant states that she had been with the company for 12 years at that point. The complainant states that subsequently Ms. B commenced sending her e-mails with instructions of what to do for her and various reports to be produced. The complainant states that Ms. B also took over control of the administrative staff who had previously being working for the complainant and Ms. B instructed said staff to report to her. The complainant was directed to teach Ms. B her payroll duties and to book Ms. B in for Sage payroll training. The complainant states that she began to experience ill health and had to seek medical treatment. She discovered that she had high blood pressure and was suffering stress. The complainant states that in February 2018, as a result of prolonged mistreatment, she advised Mr. M that she would prefer to be demoted and carry out those duties rather than being overloaded with work. At this point, the complainant had been forced to vacate her office and was moved to the general office which she shared with other staff. The complainant states that on 16 February 2018, she was summoned to Mr. M’s office and was directed to absorb additional roles as a result of the resignation of a training supervisor. When the complainant protested given the volume of duties already performed and the effects on her health, Mr. M stated that she had to take them up.

The complainant states that on 29 February, she sent a memo to Mr. M stating that she was unable to accept any additional duties. The complainant states that she requested Mr. M to cease intimidating and harassing her and she also reminded Mr. M that he refused to remove a surveillance camera in respect of which the complainant felt she was the subject of tape recording. The complainant states that during January/February 2018, she was asked by Mr. M’s son to approve an increased salary, travel allowance and company car. The complainant asserts that she did not feel in a position to approve these requests as they were in breach of the Charities legislation. The complainant contends that in March 2018 while she was on certified sick leave, she was continually contacted by Mr. M regarding her office duties. Ultimately the complainant states that given the treatment of her by Mr. M and the effects of same on her health, she was left with no option but to resign and did so by letter dated 8 May 2018.

The complainant alleges that there were breaches of the Organisation of Working Time Act in that she was owed holiday pay on cessation of employment.

The complainant states that the respondent is in breach of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994 by its failure to provide the complainant with an updated contract when her terms and conditions were changed in November/December 2017.

The complainant has also brought a claim under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 1998, in that, she was penalised for raising complaints about her health in memos given to Mr. M in June and July 2017.

The complainant has made a complaint under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2010.

The complainant has also brought a claim under the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014, in that, she was penalised for highlighting irregularities in relation to payments/benefits to be paid to Mr. M’s son who worked in the company.

The respondent submits that the complainant commenced with the organisation as a trainee general operative on the conveyor belt sorting the collected clothing. It states that the company, upon realising the complainant was training to be an accountant encouraged her to apply for a vacant position of Accounts/Administration Supervisor which she was successful in getting in 2006. The respondent states that the complainant was promoted to the position of Administration Manager/Financial Controller in July 2012. The complainant’s salary was increased by €10,000 to reflect the new position as Manager which brought her salary up to €50,000. The respondent asserts that the complainant, in discussion with Mr. M CEO in December 2017, accepted a salary increase of €5000 bringing her salary up to €55,000.

The respondent submits that the complainant was not constructively dismissed as she has asserted but in fact resigned her employment of her own volition on 8 May 2018.

Background

The respondent contends that in 2017, the company was having some operational and performance issues specific to the complainant. These included issues such as short notification for taking time off, management of administrative staff but also included more serious issues such as not filing the accounts on time, not responding to the charity regulators regarding missed deadlines, invoices not been paid which included school fundraising clothes collections, shipping agents not being replied to, customers not being invoiced for goods and reports not being provided to the CEO on the state of the company accounts. The respondent states that these specific issues were raised with the complainant in order that explanations may be provided and to facilitate the proper functioning of the organisation.

The respondent asserts that in October 2017, Ms. B commenced employment as an Executive Assistant to the CEO and her role was to support the CEO. Ms. B was initially tasked with meeting with all supervisors and the complainant to get an understanding of how the different departments were working and developing with each other and to identify if there were any processes which could be improved upon. The respondent states that on 9 November 2017, Mr. M (CEO) Ms. B and the complainant met to introduce Ms. B and to explain her role. The respondent contends that the complainant refused to meet Ms. B as requested by Mr. M. In November 2017, the areas of concern were again outlined to the complainant in order to address them and move forward. The respondent states that in December 2017, the complainant and Mr. M met on dates between 12 and 18 of December 2017 to discuss and clarify the complainant’s functions, responsibilities and duties. A role profile was issued in conjunction with an increase in salary of €5000. The respondent states that on 9 February 2018 despite being employed in the position as Administration Manager/Financial Controller and having had discussions with the CEO with clarifications on her role and accepting a pay increase, the complainant did not want the position of “Manager”.

The respondent submits that on 20 February 2018, the complainant provided a memo to Mr. M. In the memo, the complainant purported to resign from her contractual “managerial responsibilities” and said she wished to continue as a “Supervisor Accounts/Administration” despite this not being her role. The respondent states that this memo was on foot of a meeting between the complainant, Mr. M and a subordinate of the complainant whom she was responsible to manage. The respondent maintains that the complainant’s memo contained very strong language referring to “intimidation” and “being treated like a slave” and several issues of concern to her. The respondent states that despite this alleged treatment, the complainant stated that she was “willing to continue to perform my duties as a Supervisor Accounts/Administration diligently… under a conducive workplace environment”. The respondent states that on 20 February 2018, Mr. M responded to the complainant expressing his shock and sadness at the memo and its contents. He rejected its contents and indicated he was passing her memo to the Board.

The respondent states that on 27 February 2018, at an AGM of the Board, Ms. L (Independent Board Member) was tasked with meeting the complainant to understand her complaint and determine next steps following the meeting. A meeting was arranged for 14 March for Ms. L to meet the complainant. On 14 March, the complainant went home sick and did not attend the meeting. The respondent states that the complainant did not return to the office until 8 May 2018 and on this date she contacted Mr. M by telephone stating that she was resigning with immediate effect. Mr. M was shocked at this sudden decision and said to the complainant that notice was required and a proper handover needed to be done to give the company time to find a replacement but the complainant refused and left the premises. The respondent submits that from the time the complainant was absent on 14 March 2018 to the date of her resignation, the company struggled to operate and carry out the necessary financial functions of the organisation. While the complainant was absent, the company struggled to get banking passwords from the complainant which led to the company having to contact it’s auditor. The auditor then had to arrange to meet the complainant’s husband on a public street to procure the banking passwords from the complainant in order to conduct fundamental company transactions.

The respondent submits that following the complainant’s resignation, it became apparent that the complainant had been carrying out an enormous amount of work, unrelated to the company, on company time including financial transactions as a certified agent for “Small World Transfers” and administration work in respect of her church and affiliated matters which was submitted at the hearing. The respondent states that a matter was raised regarding CCTV. It states that cameras are installed at various points throughout the factory for the last 15 years. The cameras were installed as a security measure as the premises had been burgled on a number of areas. It is a high crime area and the cameras are beneficial to the company’s insurers. The respondent states that the complainant in her role would have signed off on the cheques for the updating of the camera systems. The respondent states that reference was made to signing into the complainant’s e-mails. On this point the respondent submits that the complainant’s e-mail account is a company account and it was obliged to open the complainant’s work e-mail on occasions as the company was being made aware that the complainant was not responding to e-mails from the Charities Commission, invoices were not being paid and schools who fundraise were not being paid. The respondent asserts that in relation to allegations regarding Mr. M’s son, it would not be appropriate for him to have any involvement in such interactions and it was the complainant’s responsibility alone to carry out such duties as she did for many years. The respondent refutes the allegation by the complainant that Mr. M ripped up a letter of complaint dated 23 June in front of the complainant. Indeed, Mr. M states that he did not receive the memos purported to be sent by the complainant dated 23 June or 7 July.

Claim under the Payment of Wages Act

The respondent states that the complainant was paid all monies due to her. There were no complaints raised internally in relation to this allegation and the complainant was responsible for payroll when employed.

Claim under Organisation of Working Time Act

The cognisable period is 7 May 2018 to 6 November 2018. The respondent states that the complainant did not work on Sundays, was not required to and was never requested to do so. It states that the complainant was paid all annual leave and public holiday entitlements due to her while in employment and upon her resignation of employment. The respondent asserts that in the relevant annual leave year, the complainant took 12 days paid annual leave.

Claim under Terms of Employment Information Act

The respondent states that the complainant was provided with a written statement of her terms and conditions of employment. It further states that the complainant was also provided with a contract when she was promoted to the role of manager of Administration/Financial Controller.

Claim under Section 45 A of the Industrial Relations Act

The respondent states that the complainant is not covered by either the Security Industry or Contract Cleaning Employment Regulation Order.

Claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act

The respondent submits that the complainant did not initiate or exhaust the company grievance procedure which formed part of her contract of employment. It states that despite not initiating the grievance procedure, the complainant when offered did not meet the independent board member Ms. L to discuss her concerns. The respondent states that the complainant resigned her employment without giving the company the opportunity to address any issues she may have had. The respondent states that the complainant’s behaviour was unreasonable in resigning before giving the respondent an opportunity to investigate the issues which purportedly lead to her resigning. The respondent relies on the following caselaw in this regard, Conway v Ulster Bank UD474/1981, Travers v MBNA Ireland Ltd. UD 20/2006 and McCormack v Dunnes Stores UD 1421/2008.

It is the respondent’s position that it in no way repudiated the contract of employment but rather operated the employment relationship at all times within the parameters of that contractual relationship. The respondent submits that its interactions with the complainant were at all times reasonable.

Claim under Employment Equality Act

The respondent asserts that the complainant has not made out a prima facie case of discrimination such that there is a presumption of discrimination and can provide no evidence vis a vis comparators. The respondent submits that the complainant’s claim that she was penalised or subject to victimisation by her employer is without substance and should be disregarded as factually without basis. In relation to the complainant’s claim of harassment, the respondent states that this allegation is completely without basis. The respondent contends that the complainant’s memo dated 20 February 2018 makes no reference to her race. It states that the complainant did not raise any issues in respect of her race at that time or previously which could substantiate a claim of harassment or victimisation. The respondent reiterates that these complaints should be dismissed in their entirety.

Claim under the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act

It is the respondent’s position that the complainant was not penalised or threatened with penalisation for making a complaint in respect of her health and safety or in any way by the respondent. In this regard, the respondent cites the caselaw in Toni & Guy Blackrock Ltd v Paul O’ Neill HSD095 and Citizens Information Board v John Curtis HSD101. The respondent submits that the claim resting with the complainant’s allegation of penalisation is without foundation. It states that the complainant in the within claim (a) did not commit an act protected by subsection (3) of section 27 and (b) the employer did not impose a detriment on the employee because of, or in retaliation for, having committed the protected act. Accordingly, the respondent states that there cannot be a causal link between a protected act and any alleged penalisation.

Claim under the Protected Disclosures Act

It is the respondent’s position that the complainant has not made a protected disclosure as defined within the meaning of same in the Act. The respondent further states that the complainant has in no way been penalised or suffered detriment as a result of any alleged disclosure and submits that there is no basis to this claim and should be dismissed.

Claim under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act

The respondent states that this claim is entirely misconceived and should be dismissed.

Claim under Organisation of Working Time Act CA-00023075-001

While the complainant alleges that she should be compensated for outstanding annual leave entitlements on cessation, the respondent gave evidence to state that the complainant was paid all annual leave and public holiday entitlements due to her while in employment and upon her resignation of employment. The respondent asserts that in the relevant annual leave year, the complainant took 12 days paid annual leave. Having heard the evidence I find that the complainant has not established that there was a breach of the Organisation of Working Time Act and accordingly I find that this complaint is not well-founded.

Claim under Terms of Employment Information Act CA-23075-007

While the respondent submits that the complainant was provided with a contract of employment when she was promoted to the role of Administration/Financial Controller. I note that following the changes that occurred to the complainant’s terms of employment in or around November/December 2018, the respondent failed to notify the complainant of the changes in writing in accordance with section 5(1) of the Act. Accordingly in the circumstances, I find that the respondent is in breach of the above Act and I award the complainant €550 compensation in respect of said breach.

Claim of Constructive Dismissal under the Unfair Dismissal Act CA-23075-010

The complainant stated at hearing that she had no option but to resign her employment with the respondent due to the unreasonable manner in which she was treated by the respondent organisation.

Constructive Dismissal is defined under Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 as follows;

“the termination by the employee of his contract of employment with his employer, whether prior notice of the termination was or was not given to the employer, in circumstances in which because of the conduct of the employer, the employee was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for the employee to terminate the contract of employment without giving prior notice of the termination to the employer”.

As the complainant is alleging constructive dismissal, the fact of dismissal is in dispute and the onus of proof rests with the complainant to establish facts to prove that the actions of the respondent were such as to justify her terminating her employment. Section 1 of the Act envisages two circumstances in which a resignation may be considered a constructive dismissal. This arises where the employer’s conduct amounts to a repudiatory breach of the contract of employment and in such circumstances the employee would be “entitled” to resign his position, often referred to as the “contract test”. This requires that an employer be “guilty of conduct which is a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which shows that the employer no longer intends to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract, then the employee is entitled to treat himself as discharged from any further performance” as held in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd. v Sharp [1978] IRL 332.

Secondly, there is an additional reasonableness test which may be relied upon as either an alternative to the contract test or in combination with that test. This test asks whether the employer conducted his or her affairs in relation to the employee so unreasonably that the employee cannot fairly be expected to put up with it any longer, if so she is justified in leaving. The question for me to decide is whether, because of the conduct of the respondent, the complainant was or would have been entitled, or it was or would have been reasonable for her to terminate the contract of employment.

The requirement to substantially utilise internal procedures is an essential element of succeeding in a claim of constructive dismissal. This is set out in the case of Conway v Ulster Bank Ltd. (UD 474/1981) whereby the Employment Appeals Tribunal stated that:

“the appellant did not act reasonably in resigning without first having substantially utilised the grievance procedure to attempt to remedy her complaints”

Similarly, in Travers v MBNA Ireland Ltd [UD720/2006] the EAT stated,

“We find that the claimant did not exhaust the grievance procedure made available to him by the respondent and this proves fatal to the claimant’s case. In constructive dismissal cases, it is incumbent for a claimant to utilise all internal remedies made available to him unless good cause can be shown that the remedy or appeal process is unfair.”

In the within claim, the complainant is alleging that the mistreatment of her at the hands of the CEO Mr. M amounted to bullying and that this behaviour and the respondent’s inaction regarding same brought about her resignation amounting to a constructive dismissal.

In all of the circumstances of the within complaint, I prefer the evidence of the witnesses for the respondent as I found their testimony more cogent and convincing. While the complainant gave testimony that she gave a memo to Mr. M in June 2018 about her grievances and he read the memo and ripped it up, I note that there was no reference about said memo at the material time. The complainant stated that she did not want to go formal and put it in e-mail format as Mr. M did not like receiving such e-mails and that she was trying to deal with the issues on an informal basis. I find this argument lacking in cogency given that the complainant was in the company a substantial length of time in a senior role and was aware of the company’s policies and procedures. I do not find her testimony on this matter plausible. I am cognisant that when the complainant sent the memo dated 20 February 2018 by e-mail to Mr. M; Mr. M, on receipt of same gave testimony to state that while he was shocked and stunned, he passed the memo straight to the Board to deal with given the serious nature of the grievances therein and due to the conflict which arose regarding his involvement in same. However, the complainant resigned her position prior to giving the respondent an opportunity to investigate the grievances in line with their policies and procedures.

I am also mindful that the respondent submitted at the hearing copious volumes of documentation   in respect of work which had been carried out on company devices by the complainant in respect of   financial transactions as a certified agent for “Small World Transfers” and administration work in respect of her church and affiliated matters; while the complainant has stated that none of this work was carried out on company time, I find this testimony lacking in credibility.

In relation to the complainant’s claim of constructive dismissal, based on the totality of the evidence heard, on balance, I find that the complainant has not established that the respondent’s behaviour was such that it amounted to a significant breach going to the root of the contract of employment, or which indicated that the respondent no longer intended to be bound by one or more of the essential terms of the contract such that the complainant was entitled to treat himself as discharged from any other performance. I am satisfied that the complainant has not established that the respondent’s conduct was so unreasonable that she was justified in leaving her employment.

Having examined the facts as presented, I find on balance that the complainant did not utilise the internal procedures available to her to process her alleged bullying complaints. Therefore, I conclude that the standard of reasonableness required to substantiate a claim of constructive dismissal has not been met where the complainant failed to exhaust the procedures available to her before taking the step to resign thereby not providing the respondent with an opportunity to address her grievance in a proper manner. I find that the complainant acted precipitously and I am satisfied that she does not meet the legal test for a constructive dismissal.

Claim under the Safety Health & Welfare at Work Act CA-00023075-012

In order to make out a complaint of penalisation contrary to the Act, it is necessary for the complainant to establish not only that she suffered a detriment of a type referred to at subsection (1) but that the detriment complained of was imposed because of, or was in retaliation for, having committed the protected act. Having considered this claim, I am satisfied that the complainant did not commit an act protected by subsection (3) of section 27 and (b) the employer did not impose a detriment on the employee because of, or in retaliation for, having committed the protected act. Accordingly, I find that this complaint is not well-founded and therefore fails.

Claim under Employment Equality Act CA-00023075-013

The complainant is alleging that she was discriminated against on grounds of race. The complainant is of African origin. The complainant states that Mr. M showed favouritism towards Ms. B, who is an Irish national, in that, she took over some of the duties of the complainant. She further states that Mr. M refused to approve a half day’s annual leave for her at short notice and that some staff were sent on holidays paid by the company. In addition she states that a company car was given to a staff member who was in the role of Transport Supervisor.

I am cognisant of the caselaw in Margetts v Graham Anthony & Co. Ltd EDA038 which outlines the evidential burden which must be discharged by the complainant before a prima facie case of discrimination can be said to have been established. The Labour Court stated “the mere fact that the complainant falls within one of the discriminatory grounds laid down under the Act is not sufficient in itself to establish a claim of discrimination. The complainant must adduce other facts from which it may be inferred on the balance of probabilities that an act of discrimination has occurred.” Furthermore, in the case of Melbury Developments Ltd. v Valpeters [2010] ELR 64, the Court stated that “mere speculation or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn.” Having heard the evidence,I am satisfied that the complainant has failed to establish a prima face case of discrimination on grounds of race in relation to her conditions of employment.

The complainant has also claimed harassment and victimisation. I note that the complainant’s memo of 20 February 2018 makes no reference to her race. Having carefully considered the evidence heard I find that the complainant has not demonstrated a prima facie case of harassment on grounds of her race under the employment equality legislation and consequently this claim fails. I am further satisfied that the complainant was not subjected to victimisation within the meaning of the definition set out in Section 74 (2) of the Employment Equality Acts and therefore these complaints fail.

Claim under the Protected Disclosures Act CA-00023075-014

In relation to the Protected Disclosures Act, section 3 outlines the nature of “relevant wrongdoings” for the purposes of making a protected disclosure. They include

(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

(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 latter falling within any of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be concealed or destroyed.

Having considered the within complaint, I find that the complainant has not made a protected disclosure with the meaning as defined in the Act, accordingly I am satisfied that this claim is not well-founded.

Claim under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act CA-00023075-015

This legislation was repealed on 30 July 2018. Accordingly in the circumstances I do not have jurisdiction to deal with this matter.

Claim under Organisation of Working Time Act CA-00023075-001

I find that this complaint is not well-founded and therefore fails.

Claim under Terms of Employment Information Act CA-23075-007

I find that this complaint is well-founded and I award the complainant €550 compensation in respect of said breach.

Claim of Constructive Dismissal under the Unfair Dismissal Act CA-23075-010

I find that the complainant was not subjected to a constructive unfair dismissal and accordingly this complaint fails.

Claim under the Safety Health & Welfare at Work Act CA-00023075-012

I find that this complaint is not well-founded and therefore fails.

Claim under Employment Equality Act CA-00023075-013

I find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of her race. I further find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case in relation to harassment on grounds of her race. I find that the complainant was not subjected to victimisation by the respondent.

Claim under the Protected Disclosures Act CA-00023075-014

Having considered this complaint, I find that the complainant has not made a protected disclosure within the meaning as defined in the Act, accordingly this complaint is not well-founded.

Claim under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act CA-00023075-015

This legislation was repealed on 30 July 2018. Accordingly, in the circumstances I do not have jurisdiction to deal with this matter.

Constructive dismissal, Employment Equality Act, race, harassment, victimisation, Organisation of Working Time Act, Terms of Employment (Information) Act