Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Craig  Cooney

AP Haslam

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Katie Nugent NFP HR

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00070429-001

31/03/2025

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

CA-00072771-001

25/06/2025

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and a witness for the respondent undertook to give their evidence under affirmation.

The complainant’s salary amounted to €716.88 per week, this was agreed by the parties.

CA-00070429-001 Terms of Employment Information

The complainant submitted that he did not receive a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment in writing in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

CA-00072771-001 Protected Disclosure

The complainant submitted that he was penalised for having made a protected disclosure.

In evidence the complainant confirmed that he had not made a disclosure in relation to a relevant wrongdoing for the purposes of the Act.

CA-00070429-001 Terms of Employment Information

The respondent accepted that it had contravened the Act by not providing a written statement of the terms and conditions of the complainant’s employment.  It noted that it had issued documentation after having received copies of the WRC complaint forms.

CA-00072771-001 Protected Disclosure

The respondent submitted that the complainant had not submitted a protected disclosure in accordance with the provision of the Act and accordingly it could not have penalised the complainant on that basis.

CA-00070429-001 Terms of Employment Information

The respondent accepted that it had contravened the provisions of the Act.  Having regard to the foregoing I find that the complaint is well founded. In the circumstances I consider that compensation equivalent to four weeks is just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances of this complaint.

CA-00072771-001 Protected Disclosure

The respondent suggested that the complainant had not made a disclosure in accordance with the Act. 

Section 5(1) (2) & (3) of the Protected Disclosures Act, as amended, states as follows:

5. (1) For the purposes of this Act “protected disclosure” means, subject to subsection (6) and sections 17 and 18, a disclosure of relevant information (whether before or after the date of the passing of this Act) made by a worker in the manner specified in section 6, 7, 7B, 8, 9 or 10.

(2) For the purposes of this Act information is “relevant information” if—

(a) in the reasonable belief of the worker, it tends to show one or more relevant wrongdoings, and

(b) it came to the attention of the worker in a work-related context.

(3) The following matters are relevant wrongdoings for the purposes of this Act—

(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 or services,

(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,

(h) that a breach has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur, or

(i) that information tending to show any matter falling within any of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be concealed or destroyed or an attempt has been, is being or is likely to be made to conceal or destroy such information.

The Adjudicator went through the list of relevant wrongdoings contained in the Act and the complainant confirmed that he did not make a disclosure regarding any relevant wrongdoings.

Accordingly, I find that the complainant did not make a protected disclosure in accordance with the Act.  Accordingly, I find that the complainant was not penalised for making a protected disclosure.

CA-00070429-001 Terms of Employment Information

Having regard to all the oral and written evidence submitted in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the Act was contravened, and I order the respondent to pay the complainant compensation of €2867.52 which I consider to be just and equitable in all the circumstances of the complaint.

CA-00072771-001 Protected Disclosure

Having regard to all the oral and written evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the complainant was not penalised for having made a protected disclosure.

Terms of Employment Information – contravention accepted – award of compensation – Penalisation – Protected Disclosure – no relevant wrongdoing reported - no penalisation under the Act.