Complainant

Respondent

Parties

David Faherty

The Royal Dublin Society

Representatives

Self-represented

Cathy Smith BL

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00056986-001

02/06/2023

On August 1st 2023, the parties were notified of the date and time of this hearing, 11.30am on Tuesday, September 19th.  Mr Faherty wrote to the WRC on September 4th, seeking an adjournment for the following reasons:

§    He is suspended from work, with no access to files and diaries which he says he needs to fully particularise his complaint.

§    Several investigations that are relevant to his complaint have not yet been concluded. 

§    Arising from a data subject access request, he is waiting for information to be provided to him by the RDS.  He is also waiting to obtain from the respondent what he described as several important documents.

§    He is not prepared to present his own case at the hearing and he is seeking legal representation.

§    He has not been informed if certain people will attend the hearing.

§    He claims that his employer has threatened to withdraw a settlement offer if he proceeds with this complaint and that he needs to get legal advice on that matter.

On September 13th, the officer dealing with the adjournment request refused Mr Faherty’s application on the basis that he had sufficient notice of the date of the hearing to deal with his concerns.  When the hearing opened, Mr Faherty repeated his request, saying that he was unwilling to proceed because he was not legally represented.  He also said that he was under the supervision of his doctor, although he provided no evidence to this effect.

After the hearing, I was provided with a copy of letter Mr Faherty sent by email to the WRC at 18.21 on September 18th, the day before the hearing.  In his letter, Mr Faherty repeated his request for an adjournment for the reasons set out above.

I have decided to refuse Mr Faherty’s request for the following reasons:

1.           In a 41-page submission to the WRC, Mr Faherty listed over 100 incidents, meetings and conversations that occurred in his workplace between December 2019 and April 2023 which, he claims, are material to his complaint.  The details in this document and the dates attached to each incident contradict his argument that he had no resources to prepare his case.

2.           As he had seven weeks’ notice of the date of this hearing, Mr Faherty had ample time to instruct a solicitor.

3.           Mr Faherty initiated this complaint, and it is for him to call witnesses in support of his case that he was penalised. 

4.           It was not unreasonable, but entirely fair, for the solicitors for the RDS to warn Mr Faherty of the implications for any settlement agreement of proceeding with having his complaint aired at the WRC.

5.           In the opening discussions at the hearing, Mr Faherty informed me that the penalisation which he complains about occurred in 2021.  He submitted this complaint to the WRC on June 2nd 2023, and it is therefore outside the maximum time limit of 12 months prescribed at section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.  For this reason, his complaint is cannot succeed.

Leaving that important issue aside, I asked Mr Faherty to use the time available for the hearing to open his case, to set out his position regarding his claim, and to allow his employer to do likewise.  The hearing could then be adjourned to allow both sides to call witnesses and for Mr Faherty to be represented.  Mr Faherty refused to agree to my proposal and I informed him that I would not adjourn the hearing but that I would make a decision based on his unwillingness to proceed.

Due to the complainant’s refusal to present his case at the hearing on September 19th 2023, I have decided that his complaint under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 is not well founded.

Adjournment not granted