Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00049963
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Employee | An Employer |
Representatives | Bernard Stobie of Bernard Stobie Solicitors | Éinde O'Donnell of Alastair Purdy & Co Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
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-00061283-001 | 30/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00061283-002 | 30/01/2024 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 | CA-00061283-003 | 30/01/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/07/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
This matter referred extensively to third parties who were not present and were accused of criminal activity I decided to anonymise the decision as requested by both parties.
Background:
The Complainant worked as a sales assistant in the Respondent retailer from November 2022 until August 2023 when he was dismissed. He has lodged overlapping complaints related to his dismissal which the Respondent submits resulted from his having caused overpayments to himself by way of inaccurate entries into their systems.
He does not have the requisite one year service to be covered by the general protection afforded under Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act. He alleges that his dismissal was due to his having made a protected disclosure. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant’s solicitor made oral submissions on his behalf. He was dismissed following an allegation of fraud related to certain entries into the Company systems. He was subject to an investigation meeting from his Department Manager and then a disciplinary meeting from the Store Manager. His contention is that he did nothing untoward and was not trained on system but had to oversee the system due to leave of his Department Manager. Certain entries were made into the system but he admits them as mistakes. There was no intention to defraud the Company yet they dismissed him. He believes this is due to his having raised issues related to drug taking. The Complainant gave evidence under affirmation. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s solicitor made oral and written submissions. They dismissed the Complainant after his having made entries into their time systems suggesting he was working when he was absent and this resulted in payments to him. They were entirely entitled to dismiss him. The Complainant’s line manager (who is the Department Manager) and the General Manager for their Division both gave evidence under affirmation. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Protected disclosure For the Complainant to enjoy the protections of either Section 12 of the Protected Disclosures Act or Section 6(2)ba of the Unfair Dismissals Act he must first identify a protected disclosure which he alleges that he was dismissed or penalised for having made. The Complainant’s evidence was that the sole reason for his dismissal was because he brought up drug usage within the company. He came to know about this as it related to former colleague that used to work in the company. She is a young woman from the same country as the Complainant and her dad sent a text that he had come to know that a person who worked for the company was supplying drugs to his daughter. A friend of this former colleague also raised the same issue with him. He raised this with his Department Manager and suggested it be escalated to the Division Manager. His Department Manager considered this but decided it was to do with an outside work matter. The Complainant was cross examined by Mr O’Donnell who sought more detail related to this allegation, where drug misuse is supposed to have occurred and how the allegation arose. The Complainant’s replies were generally that he didn’t have more detail he just knows that it was supposed to have happened. The two people had worked together for the Respondent but the young woman had left the Company about two months before he raised the matter with his Department Manager. The other person was still working for the Respondent at the time of the disclosure. The other friend of the young woman was not an employee of the Respondent. He did not raise the issue with An Garda Síochána. I asked for further context and the Complainant explained that the former employee was his flatmate and he had helped her get into working for the Respondent. She resigned in June 2023 because her father called her back to their home country and her father then told him that this person had given her drugs previously. The Department Manager confirmed that on the 26th of July a couple of days after he returned from annual leave the Complainant asked him if they could talk about something. He mentioned that a former colleague and an employee were involved in an unhealthy relationship and that there were drugs involved and that the other employee has an unhealthy influence on this young woman. The Complainant wanted them to investigate but he did not believe it was appropriate as it was not related to work. Mr O’Donnell for the Respondent has argued that no protected disclosure was made and refers to Section 5 subsection 1 and 2 of the act which provide as follows: For the purposes of this Act “protected disclosure” means, ….a disclosure of relevant information …made by a worker….. and 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.” The Complainant’s friend and flatmate had worked for the Respondent for a short period of time after the Complainant helped get her a job. After she left the country two people, both entirely unconnected with the Respondent and the Complainant’s work, reported to him that they believed that this former employee had previously engaged in drug taking with a current employee of the Respondent. There is no suggestion this was supposed to have occurred on Respondent premises or at Respondent organised events. On review of the Complainant’s evidence about the communication made to the Deputy Manager I agree with the submissions of Mr O’Donnell for the Respondent, the Complainant has not made a protected disclosure as defined by the act. As the dismissal could not be prohibited by either act the complaints must fail. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00061283-001 I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00061283-002 I find the complaint is not well founded. CA-00061283-003 I find the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 22/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy