Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Individual

A Healthcare Provider

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00063503-001

16/05/2024

The Complainant worked for the Respondent from March of 2003 until 20th May 2019 when she was placed on ill health retirement.

It has been determined by both the WRC and Labour Court that the Complainant’s employment relationship with the Respondent ended on 20th of May 2019. At various stages, the Complainant has sought to assert that she is on a form of suspension as she believes the decision to place her on retirement was not properly arrived at. While the Labour Court did rule that the process of the Complainant’s ill health retirement violated the Employment Equality Acts the Complainant was not reinstated and instead received compensation for her termination.

The argument that she is still an employee has already been considered by the WRC and rejected.

Previous Cases

The Complainant has challenged her ill health retirement by bringing complaints under a variety of acts, some complaints were appealed to the Labour Court. Decisions issued in these cases and appeals in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.

While these complaints were being considered and even after they had been determined, the Complainant continued to refer complaints to the WRC in 2020, 2021 and 2022. These complaints were referred to me and a hearing was held in January 2023. Decisions were issued in these cases in May 2023. These decisions are ADJ-00030360, ADJ-00032093, ADJ-0032418, ADJ-00040029, ADJ-00037341, ADJ-00037340, ADJ-00037339 and ADJ-00035260, ADJ-00036391, ADJ-00040031.

Another set of complaints were filed in November 2022, December 2022 and February 2023. A hearing was scheduled for these on the 7th of November 2023.

As I already had sight of the extensive and repetitious nature of the Complainant’s complaints against the Respondent, as well as the issues of fact already determined by both the WRC and the Labour Court, I first considered whether these complaints (ADJ-00044490, ADJ-00047508, ADJ-00044363, ADJ-00046231, ADJ-00044662, ADJ-00043707, ADJ-00044384, ADJ-00047807) should be dismissed as frivolous, as provided for under Section 77A of the Employment Equality Acts and Section 42 of the Workplace Relations Act. I determined that they were and decisions reflecting this were issued on the 21st of September 2023, and the hearing was cancelled.

This complaint dated the 16th of May, 2024 has been referred to me. It was submitted approximately 5 years after the employment relationship ended.

In the circumstances, I believe it is appropriate for me to first consider whether I should dismiss these complaints as frivolous or vexatious, as provided for under Section 42 of the Workplace Relations Act.

I would note that while this decision (ADJ-00051888) is issuing alongside ADJ-00050057 the circumstances of how this case was referred to me was slightly different. ADJ-00050057 was referred to me as it was scheduled for hearing. Later the WRC scheduling team wrote to the parties to see if they would consider having this case (ADJ-00051888) heard alongside ADJ-00050057. The Respondent replied in the affirmative and the Complainant did not reply. This case was still referred to me and if we had proceeded to hearing I would have heard the Complainant on whether she would agree to the case being heard or whether she was seeking an adjournment of ADJ-00051888.

The Complainant submitted a single complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act in May 2024.

The complaint form narrative detailed extensive efforts the Complainant had made to submit protected disclosures and the alleged failure of the Respondent to properly investigate these matters and their decision that they did not meet the criteria of a protected disclosure.

The Protected Disclosures Act 2014 provides the WRC with jurisdiction to consider complaints under Section 12. (1).

This states: 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, for having made a protected disclosure.

It is clear that I only have jurisdiction to consider penalisation of employees and not general non-compliance with the act, which is what the complaint form refers to.

Previous decisions

As noted above I have already issued decisions in May and September 2023. These referred to previous WRC and Labour Court decisions related to the same facts.

These decisions have established the following:

·       The Complainant ceased being an employee of the Respondent in May 2019. She is not an employee on suspension.

·       Complaints concerning the Respondents conduct before this date relate to matters which have already been determined by the WRC and Labour Court.

·       Complaints concerning the Respondents conduct before this date are manifestly out of time.

·       Complaints concerning the Respondents conduct after that date not grounded in an employment relationship.

Section 42 of the Workplace Relations Act

Section 42. (1) of the Workplace Relations Act clearly states that: An adjudication officer may, at any time, dismiss a complaint or dispute referred to him or her under section 41 if he or she is of the opinion that it is frivolous or vexatious.

On review of the complaint form and the previous decisions related to the Complainant’s previous cases, it is clear that these complaints are frivolous in the sense that they lack any legal merit.

There is nothing to be gained by holding a hearing into these matters and it would only serve to waste the resources of the WRC and the Respondent which has already been required to attend several hearings. 

In accordance with Section 42 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 I conclude the complaint is frivolous and I dismiss it.