CPD221

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACTS, 2007 AND 2014

PARTIES:

FRS BUSINESS SERVICES T/A TURAS NUA
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

MS MARTHA MULLARNEY

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00021170 CA-00027813-002, CA-00027814-002

BACKGROUND:

2.The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 28 January 2020. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 February 2022. The following is the Court's Determination:

DETERMINATION:

Background

Ms. Mullarney, ‘the Complainant’, lodged a complaint that she had been penalised by her former employer, Turas Nua, ‘the Respondent’, because she had raised a matter and that this action was contrary to the terms of the Consumer Protection Act, 2007.

An Adjudication Officer of the Workplace Relations Commission decided that the complaint was not well founded. The Complainant appealed that Decision to this Court.

Preliminary Issue

The relevant section of the Consumer Protection Act, 2007 reads as follows;

Protections for persons reporting breaches.87.

— (1) A person who, apart from this section, would be so liable shall not be liable in damages in respect of the communication, whether in writing or otherwise, by the person to the Agency of the person’s opinion that

—(a) an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions has been or is being committed, or(b) any of the relevant provisions that prohibits a person from doing a particular thing or things has not been or is not being complied with,

unless it is proved that the person has not acted reasonably in forming that opinion and communicating it to the Agency.

(2) The reference insubsection

(1)to liability in damages shall be construed as including a reference to liability to be the subject of an order providing for any other form of relief.

(2A)Subsection (1)does not apply to a communication that is a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

(3) An employer shall not penalise an employee for having formed an opinion of the kind referred to insubsection (1)and communicated it, whether in writing or otherwise, to the Agency if the employee has acted reasonably in forming that opinion and communicating it to the Agency.

Matter to be determined

The first matter to be determined if the Court is to examine an appeal under s. 87(3) of the Act, as set out above, is whether an employee formed an opinion of the kind set out in s.87(1) and communicated that opinion to the Consumer Protection Agency.

In response to a query from the Court, the Complainant confirmed that she had not made any such communication.

Deliberation

The Court’s jurisdiction under the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 in respect of the Consumer Protection Act is confined narrowly to the protection from penalisation by their employers of employees who make a communication to the Agency.

If a communication of the sort set out in the relevant sections of the Consumer Protection Act has not been made, the Court has no jurisdiction.

Determination

The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Tom Geraghty
CN	______________________
07 March 2022	Deputy Chairman