Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Lucas Albau Hernandez

Tiktok Technology Limited

Representatives

Saoirse Kelly BL instructed by Yuli O'Grady of O'Grady & Co. Solicitors

Owen Keany BL instructed by Aisling Muldowney of A&L Goodbody LLP

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-00069090-001

06/02/2025

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

CA-00069090-002

06/02/2025

The Complainant submitted the complaint form on 6 February 2025 alleging a breach of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 because he says that he was penalised for making a protected disclosure.

The Complainant gave evidence by way of religious oath and, as an interpreter was present, the interpreters affirmation was also administered at the hearing. The Complainant was cross examined by the Respondent’s representative and at the conclusion of this, the Respondent made an application to the effect that no protected disclosure had been identified and proposed to make written submissions on that point.

A number of preliminary applications were made at the outset of the hearing.

Complainant application to exclude Respondent’s written submissions

The Complainant made an application that the Respondent’s submissions should be refused on the basis that they were received only a day before the hearing. The Respondent objected to this application. The Adjudication Officer determined that the written submissions would not be refused, but the Complainant was invited to apply for an adjournment if he felt that he was prejudiced by the late submission. The Complainant declined to apply for an adjournment and the hearing proceeded on that basis.

Respondent’s applications regarding scope; cognisable period; failure to identify a protected disclosure and failure to substantiate the complaint

The Respondent made both written and verbal submissions in relation to the above and the Complainant’s representative was afforded an opportunity to respond to each issue. These matters are addressed further below in this decision but, in short, the Adjudication Officer’s decision following the applications being made as preliminary issues was that they each were a matter for evidence and the hearing proceeded on that basis.

Duplication of complaints

The complaint form contains two complaints, CA-00069090-001 and CA-00069090-002. These complaints are identical in form and substance. They cite the same legislation in both instances and the narrative from the first complaint is repeated in the second. There is therefore a duplication of the complaints and they will be treated as a single complaint going forward.

Request for clarification that no complaint was being considered under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.

The Respondent made submissions that the complaint was not clear in its nature or that it identified a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014. The complaint form identifies the Protected Disclosures Act, however later submissions dated 15 September 2025 state that the issues raised include “Unfair /Constructive Dismissal” and goes on to say that there was a breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, among others. The Complainant’s representative was asked by the Adjudication Officer at the hearing if the Complainant was seeking relief under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and the response was in the affirmative.

Both parties made submissions on this issue, with the Complainant asserting that it should be open to him to rely on this Act notwithstanding that he had not raised it specifically in his complaint form. It was stated that it was referred to in colloquial language by the Complainant and he should be able to avail of additional statutory protections at the hearing. The Respondent opposed this in the strongest possible terms on the grounds that a respondent should not be in a position of having to infer what employment right a complainant is alleging was breached or what type of claim is being made. It was stated that the WRC is a creature of statute and no application was made to amend the complaint form at any stage. It was submitted that it is not open to him to do so at this stage, particularly when he has been represented at all stages of the WRC process. The Respondent’s position is that it is incumbent on a complainant to identify the claim they are making and the relief they are seeking.

I acknowledge that a complaint form to the WRC is not a statutory document, however in the particular circumstances of this case, the Complainant was legally represented at all stages of this process. The complaint form was completed by his then legal representative and he had the benefit of advice when his complaint was being submitted. No reference was made to the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 until submissions dated 15 September 2025 and there was no attempt to clarify the relief sought before then. In the circumstances, the Complainant has not applied to amend the complaint form and can not now raise a further complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 or seek relief under that Act for the present complaint. The hearing proceeded on the basis that the alleged breach was penalisation under the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.

Following the Complainant’s evidence, the Respondent made an application that no protected disclosure had been identified and proposed written submissions on this point. Both parties were afforded an opportunity to make further written submissions within a defined period. I have decided to conclude this matter by way of a written decision.

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 27 June 2022. His employment ceased on 30 September 2024 and he submitted his complaint form on 6 February 2025. Written submissions were sent to the WRC and these were dated 15 September 2025 and 13 November 2025.

In his complaint form, the Complainant says that he successfully completed his probationary period and, until the events giving rise to this complaint, had a positive working relationship with the Respondent. He states that no concerns were raised regarding his performance and that he understood his work to be satisfactory.

The Complainant states that his Team Leader invited him to attend a social event after work to which no other employees were invited. He formed the view that the invitation was motivated by a desire to pursue a personal relationship. The Complainant declined the invitation and contends that his relationship with his Team Leader thereafter deteriorated significantly.

The Complainant submits that he was subsequently refused approval to attend a Data Camp training course. Initially, he was informed that the decision had been made by the body administering the course; however, when he sought clarification, he was advised that the decision had been made locally. He states that he was then informed that the refusal was based on poor performance. The Complainant rejects this explanation and submits that no performance concerns had previously been raised with him.

The Complainant contends that allegations regarding his performance were based on productivity figures that had been manipulated and falsified. He states that his actual performance was significantly stronger than the figures relied upon and that he lodged a complaint with the Respondent alleging that his productivity data had been deliberately altered. Although the complaint was investigated, it was not upheld. The Complainant maintains that there was clear documentary evidence supporting his concerns and that no proper investigation took place. He further contends in his complaint form that the manipulation of productivity figures was a known and widespread practice within the Respondent's organisation.

The Complainant submits that, following the rejection of his complaint, new management assumed responsibility for his team and that he experienced hostility from them. He states that he was refused access to a documented performance review for 2023 which he believes would have reflected favourably on his performance.

The Complainant further submits that, during 2024, he was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan and required to work across markets outside Spain, including Italy, France and Portugal. He contends that he lacked the language skills, market knowledge and business relationships necessary to operate effectively in those territories and that the targets imposed upon him were unrealistic in the circumstances.

The Complainant states that, in September 2024, he was provided with performance documents containing productivity figures which he says were inaccurate and manipulated. Despite raising concerns regarding those figures, he was subsequently subjected to a disciplinary process and received a verbal warning based on alleged poor performance. He maintains that the allegations against him were founded on falsified data and that requests for further supporting documentation were refused.

The Complainant contends that he was penalised and victimised because he raised concerns regarding the alleged falsification of productivity data. He further alleges that employees were routinely pressured to accept exit packages and waive their legal rights under threat of disciplinary action and dismissal.

The Complainant was ultimately selected for redundancy and his employment was terminated. He refused to enter into any agreement waiving his rights against the Respondent. The Complainant maintains that he was subjected to adverse treatment, disciplinary action and ultimately dismissal because he complained about what he believed to be wrongdoing within the Respondent's organisation and persisted in raising those concerns.

Evidence of the Complainant

The Complainant outlined his work history with the Respondent and stated that he had been engaged to work in the Spanish language only. He described being placed on a Performance Improvement Plan as a result of being assigned work in other languages when he was supposed to be working only in Spanish. According to the Complainant, his contract was clear that he had been employed as a Spanish speaker. He felt that there was collusion among his managers and contended that he was being asked to perform tasks that were not within the scope of his contract. He maintained that he was carrying out work that was not part of his contractual role and was expected to meet targets which he could not achieve because they related to other countries.

The Complainant submitted that it was wrong to use figures derived from those targets. He also outlined what he described as the denial of training requests. In his evidence, he stated that his manager had access to all relevant systems and was therefore able to manipulate and calculate the figures. He described inconsistencies between the production figures assigned to him and those displayed on the dashboard. Having raised concerns that the figures were incorrect and required investigation, he maintained that he was repeatedly provided with different figures and that the figures changed continually. It was his position that he was dismissed as a result of incorrect productivity figures.

The Complainant stated that he wrote to HR on 23 August 2024 and again on 28 August 2024 to raise concerns regarding the figures.

He maintained that he was penalised for highlighting what he considered to be problems with the figures. The matter was also reported through the ethics process, but, according to the Complainant, no communication was subsequently received.

In response to questions from the Adjudication Officer as to whether the issue affected other employees, the Complainant stated that he believed such practices were common within the company. He said that, for that reason, he did not sign the redundancy agreement. He further stated that he informed Human Resources that he intended to refer the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission because, in his view, the productivity figures being relied upon were inconsistent and inaccurate.

Post hearing submissions

The Complainant submits that, from 2023 to September 2024, he repeatedly raised concerns with management and Human Resources that his performance figures had been manipulated. He contends that he disclosed to his manager, Christina Fitzgerald, on 4 September 2024 that he had not been provided with accurate 2023 performance data and that inaccurate figures had been used in assessing his performance and selecting him for redundancy. He further states that his performance metrics were never properly documented and that manipulated figures were relied upon in both the Performance Improvement Plan process and the redundancy selection process.

The Complainant relies on disclosures made to the Legal Department on 24 August 2024, to William Huang in Human Resources on 28 August 2024, and to his manager Hugo Smith on 28 August 2024. He contends that these disclosures related not merely to his own circumstances but to the integrity and manipulation of performance data and therefore constituted protected disclosures under Sections 5(1) and 5(3)(b) of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. He argues that the disclosures tended to show a failure to comply with legal obligations concerning accurate company records and data integrity.

In support of this position, the Complainant relies on Baranya v Rosderra Irish Meats Group Ltd [2021] IESC 77, in which the Supreme Court held that a disclosure may be protected even where it partly concerns matters affecting the employee personally, provided it tends to show wrongdoing. He also relies on Clarke v CGI Food Services Ltd [2020] IEHC 368, where the High Court confirmed that there is no requirement to expressly label a communication a protected disclosure, and on Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] EWCA Civ 1436, where the Court held that wrongdoing need not be explicitly identified if the context makes it apparent.

The Complainant further states that, on 5 September 2024, he was provided with what was represented as his 2023 performance data but that the document indicated it had been modified on that same date. He contends that this supports his concern that performance data had been altered and manipulated.

The parties agree that the cognisable period runs from 7 August 2024 to 6 February 2025. The Complainant submits that the relevant events, including his placement on a Performance Improvement Plan and his shortlisting for redundancy, occurred within that period and establish the necessary temporal connection between his disclosures and the alleged penalisation.

The Complainant relies on Section 12(1) of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, which prohibits penalisation for making a protected disclosure, and on the definition of penalisation contained in Section 3, which includes adverse treatment such as disciplinary measures, withholding of training, negative performance assessments and other forms of detriment. While he does not challenge the redundancy itself, he contends that the processes leading to his placement on a Performance Improvement Plan and his selection for redundancy constituted penalisation because they were based on manipulated and inaccurate performance data.

The Complainant submits that his disclosures constituted “relevant information” within the meaning of Section 5(1) and disclosed a “relevant wrongdoing” under Section 5(3)(b), namely a failure to comply with legal obligations. He contends that his performance data was withheld, inaccurate data was subsequently provided, and that the data was modified before being supplied to him. As a result, he claims to have suffered unjustified detriment and penalisation within the meaning of the Act.

The Complainant further relies on the presumption contained in Section 5(8) of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, which provides that where there is an issue as to whether a disclosure is a protected disclosure, it is presumed to be so until the contrary is proved. He submits that the burden therefore rests on the Respondent.

In support of his claim of penalisation, the Complainant also relies on A Staff Nurse v A Care Centre (ADJ-00013495), which recognised adverse treatment following the raising of concerns as penalisation; Andrew Conway v Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine [2020] IEHC 664, concerning alleged penalisation arising from a failure to properly address a protected disclosure; and Padraic O’Toole v Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (ADJ-0004543, 2024), in which the WRC noted that an employee need not expressly identify a communication as a protected disclosure and accepted that retaliatory treatment may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances.

Overall, the Complainant submits that he has established a prima facie case that: (a) he made protected disclosures within the meaning of Section 5; (b) he subsequently suffered penalisation within the meaning of Section 3 and contrary to Section 12; and (c) the burden of proof under Section 5(8) now falls on the Respondent to rebut the alleged connection between the disclosures and the adverse treatment complained of.

In written submissions dated 7 October 2025, the Respondent submits that the complaint has been brought pursuant to section 12 and Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and that the scope of the claim is therefore confined to allegations of penalisation arising from the making of a protected disclosure. The Respondent notes that the legislation expressly excludes claims relating to dismissal, which fall to be considered under separate statutory provisions. Consequently, the Respondent submits that matters relating to the Complainant's selection for redundancy and termination of employment do not fall within the scope of the present complaint.

The Respondent further submits that the complaint was presented to the Workplace Relations Commission on 6 February 2025 and that, in the absence of any extension of time, the cognisable period extends only to events occurring between 7 August 2024 and 6 February 2025. The Respondent contends that the principal matters relied upon by the Complainant, including the refusal of participation in a Data Camp course in 2023, the alleged failure to provide a documented performance review in 2023, the decision to place him on a Performance Improvement Plan in April 2024, the commencement of disciplinary proceedings in May 2024 and the imposition of a verbal warning in June 2024, all occurred outside the applicable cognisable period. Accordingly, the Respondent submits that those matters cannot form the basis of a complaint under the Act.

The Respondent also submits that the Complainant has failed to clearly identify any protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. It contends that the Complainant has referred generally to concerns regarding his treatment and interactions with management but has not identified any disclosure of information tending to show a relevant wrongdoing as defined by the legislation. In particular, the Respondent submits that the Complainant's complaint regarding productivity figures arose in the context of a reconsideration request relating to his own performance review and rating. The Respondent states that this matter concerned the Complainant's personal employment circumstances and was therefore excluded from the definition of a relevant wrongdoing pursuant to section 5(5A) of the Act.

The Respondent submits that the reconsideration request was carefully reviewed by Human Resources and senior management. Following a review of the performance data and relevant records, it was concluded that the Complainant's performance rating was appropriate. The Respondent states that, irrespective of the Complainant's concerns regarding productivity figures, he had failed to achieve a number of key performance indicators, including productivity, quality assurance and average handling time targets. The outcome of the review was communicated to the Complainant and the Respondent rejects any suggestion that his concerns were improperly dismissed.

The Respondent further notes that the first occasion on which the Complainant expressly characterised his concerns as a protected disclosure was when he lodged the present complaint with the Workplace Relations Commission. It submits that if the Complainant genuinely believed that he was reporting wrongdoing within the organisation, there were established internal mechanisms available to him, including the Respondent's Speak Up Policy, which he did not utilise.

The Respondent also denies that the Complainant was subjected to any act of penalisation. It submits that the matters relied upon by the Complainant, namely his assignment to non-Spanish markets, his non-selection for Data Camp training, the alleged absence of a documented performance review and the implementation of performance management and disciplinary processes, arose from legitimate business and performance-related considerations. The Respondent maintains that the Complainant experienced significant performance difficulties, received support, coaching and feedback, and was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan only after efforts to improve his performance had not achieved the required outcome. When the Complainant failed to successfully complete the plan, a disciplinary process was commenced and ultimately resulted in a verbal warning, which was upheld on appeal.

The Respondent also rejects the Complainant's assertion that he was improperly required to work in non-Spanish markets. It submits that his contract of employment did not restrict him to the Spanish market and that he was provided with the necessary tools, support and resources to work across different markets, in the same manner as other employees performing similar roles.

The Respondent submits that even if the Complainant could establish that he made a protected disclosure and that he suffered some form of adverse treatment, both of which are denied, he has failed to establish any causal connection between the alleged disclosure and the actions complained of. The Respondent contends that there is no evidence that any actions taken in relation to the Complainant were motivated by, or occurred in retaliation for, the making of a protected disclosure. Rather, it maintains that all decisions concerning the Complainant were based on legitimate performance and business considerations.

In those circumstances, the Respondent submits that the Complainant has failed to establish that he made a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act, that he was subjected to penalisation, or that any alleged detriment arose as a consequence of making a protected disclosure. Accordingly, the Respondent submits that the complaint is unsubstantiated and should be dismissed.

In further submissions dated 24 October 2025, the Respondent submitted that the complaint could not succeed as the Complainant had failed to establish the existence of a protected disclosure, which was a necessary prerequisite to any claim of penalisation under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. It was argued that, although section 5(8) of the Act provides for a presumption that a disclosure is a protected disclosure until the contrary is proved, the Complainant must first adduce evidence of a disclosure that is capable, in law, of constituting a protected disclosure.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had not identified a specific disclosure upon which he relied. It was contended that neither the complaint form nor the written submissions clearly specified the communication alleged to constitute the protected disclosure. The Respondent further submitted that, when this issue was raised at hearing, the Complainant’s position was inconsistent. Reference was made to the Complainant’s representative identifying an exchange of emails between the Complainant and his Team Leader on 4 and 5 September 2024 concerning a request for information relating to the Complainant’s annual performance review. The Respondent argued that neither the Complainant’s request for information nor the Team Leader’s provision of documentation could amount to a protected disclosure, as neither communication disclosed information tending to show a relevant wrongdoing within the meaning of the Act.

The Respondent further submitted that, during his evidence, the Complainant referred to a broad range of concerns arising during his employment, principally relating to performance data used in assessing his performance during 2023 and 2024. However, it was contended that the Complainant was unable to identify any particular communication that constituted a protected disclosure or to explain how any information communicated by him disclosed a relevant wrongdoing under the Act.

The Respondent argued that the concerns relied upon by the Complainant related exclusively to his own employment circumstances and did not concern any wider wrongdoing. In this regard, it was submitted that the Complainant accepted during cross examination that the complaints raised by him were connected to his personal employment situation. The Respondent relied on section 5A of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, as inserted by the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, which provides that interpersonal grievances and complaints concerning a worker exclusively do not constitute relevant wrongdoings for the purposes of the Act and are instead matters to be addressed through grievance procedures.

The Respondent acknowledged the decision of the Supreme Court in Baranya v Rosderra Irish Meats Group Limited [2021] IESC 77, but submitted that the legislative amendments introduced with effect from 1 January 2023 were specifically designed to address the issue identified in that case whereby personal grievances could potentially fall within the scope of the Act. It was argued that, following the introduction of section 5A, complaints concerning a worker’s own employment circumstances are expressly excluded from the definition of relevant wrongdoing.

Accordingly, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant had failed to establish that he made any disclosure capable of constituting a protected disclosure and, in any event, that the matters relied upon were personal employment grievances falling outside the scope of the legislation. On that basis, the Respondent contended that there was no protected disclosure, no case of penalisation arose, and the complaint should be dismissed.

The complaint form in this case was submitted on 6 February 2025. That means that the cognisable period is 7 August 2024 to 6 February 2025. This is the 6 month period preceding the lodging of this complaint form.

The complaint form alleged that the Complainant had been penalised by his employer for having made a protected disclosure, in contravention of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.

In later submissions, the Complainant sought to expand his complaints to include constructive dismissal, harassment and victimisation. However, at all times the Complainant identified the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 as the legislation he was alleging had been breached.

Under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, an employee can make a complaint if they believe their employer has contravened any of the employment laws listed in Schedule 5 of the Act. These complaints are presented to the Director General of the WRC, usually using the WRC’s complaint form, and the Director General shall then pass the complaint to the WRC’s Adjudication Service. Section 41(1) says:

An employee (in this Act referred to as a “complainant”) or, where the employee so consents, a specified person may present a complaint to the Director General that the employee’s employer has contravened a provision specified in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 5 in relation to the employee and, where a complaint is so presented, the Director General shall, subject to section 39, refer the complaint for adjudication by an adjudication officer.

That is how the above complaints have come to me, as an Adjudication Officer, to examine and carry out all necessary inquiries.

The complaint form submitted by the Complainant identifies the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 as the legislation he alleges has been breached. Section 12(1) of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 is contained in Part 1 of Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015. Consequently, the complaints in the heading of this decision were referred to me by the Director General for adjudication.

In an acknowledgement letter dated 12 February 2025 from the Commission it was stated as follows:

You will see from this letter that the WRC has generated specific complaints from the contents of the selections made in your submitted complaint form. Please check that the specific complaints stated above reflect all the issues you wish to raise with the WRC. Please alert the WRC if there are issues you have raised but for which a specific complaint has not been generated.

On 15 September 2025, the Complainant’s cover letter stated that enclosed was:

Written submission – setting out the full details of the complaints under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, including relevant factual background.

I am satisfied that the only complaints properly referred to me for adjudication are those under the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 and not under any additional legislation. No application was made by the Complainant to amend the complaint form to include additional complaints under other legislation. Nor did the Complainant identify additional specific complaints as outlined in the letter from the WRC dated 12 February 2025. Finally, his cover letter of 15 September 2025 identifies only the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 as relevant to the complaints, notwithstanding that the included submissions go further than this.

As outlined to the Complainant at the hearing, no complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1997 or any other employment rights legislation has been validly referred to me and I therefore confine this decision to any alleged breaches of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 (hereinafter “the Act”).

For the sake of completeness, I also note that the complaint form contains a duplication of the complaints and as they are identical in form and nature, they are treated as a single complaint in this decision.

The Complainant says that he was penalised for making a protected disclosure. This is an alleged breach of section 12(1) of the Act, which states as follows:

“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.”

The burden of proof in a case of this nature rests on the Respondent. Penalisation will be deemed to have been a result of the protected disclosure, unless the employer proves that the act or omission was justified on other grounds.

Similarly, in a case where it is disputed that a disclosure is a protected disclosure, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that it is.

Section 5 of the Act defines a protected disclosure as:

5.(1) For the purposes of this Act “protected disclosure” means, subject tosubsection (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.

[…]

(8) In proceedings involving an issue as to whether a disclosure is a protected disclosure it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that it is.

Section 5(5A) goes on to say:

A matter concerning interpersonal grievances exclusively affecting a reporting person, namely, grievances about interpersonal conflicts between the reporting person and another worker, or a matter concerning a complaint by a reporting person to, or about, his or her employer which concerns the worker exclusively, shall not be a relevant wrongdoing for the purposes of this Act and may be dealt with through any agreed procedures applicable to such grievances or complaint to which the reporting person has access or such other procedures, provided in accordance with any rule of law or enactment (other than this Act), to which the reporting person has access.

It is not clear from the Complainant’s complaint form what he says the specific protected disclosure is. Rather the Complainant sets out a series of grievances relating to how he was asked to perform his work, lack of training opportunities, the alleged falsification of his performance numbers and his consequent selection for redundancy. Similarly, in the Complainant’s submissions dated 15 September 2025, it is not clear what specific statement is to be considered the protected disclosure. There is a considerable amount of documentation covering a large time frame and it is not readily apparent what the Complainant considered a protected disclosure. For that reason, the Complainant gave evidence first in this case so that he would have an opportunity to identify what he says the protected disclosure is. In his evidence, he stated that everything was a disclosure because of how he was treated. On closer questioning, he identified the alleged falsification of performance numbers as the protected disclosure.

The Complainant therefore says that his protected disclosure is that performance numbers are being falsified at the Respondent company. The Respondent disputes that this is a protected disclosure. As there is an issue as to whether the disclosure is a protected disclosure or not, by virtue of section 5(8), I shall presume that this is a protected disclosure until the contrary is proved.

The Complainant was cross-examined on the nature of his protected disclosure and both parties had the opportunity to make post hearing submissions on the issue. The Complainant states that a protected disclosure has been made and relies on the provisions of the Act and case law to substantiate this. The Respondent submits that section 5(5A) applies, on the basis that the matters raised constitute an interpersonal grievance exclusively affecting the Complainant. It is contended, therefore, that the matters complained of do not amount to a relevant wrongdoing within the meaning of the Act and, consequently, cannot constitute a protected disclosure.

I must first consider the disclosure relied upon by the Complainant as a protected disclosure within the meaning of section 5 of the Act. As the burden of proof rests on the Respondent, I must then consider whether it has proved that the disclosure is not, in fact, a protected disclosure.

The Complainant’s post hearing written submissions dated 13 November 2025 identifies the alleged protected disclosure as follows:

It is the Complainant’s claim that he informed his Manager and Human Resources that his mid-performance numbers had been manipulated on a number of occasions from 2023 up to September 2024. The Complainant made a protected disclosure to his new Manager Christina Fitzgerald on the 4th of September 2024 that he had not received his accurate performance numbers for 2023, as a result of not having his accurate numbers available, he was penalised as he was shortlisted to be selected for redundancy. The Claimant claims that his performance metrics were never officially documented and that the manipulated numbers were used in the redundancy selection process. The claimant disclosed this issue to a number of individuals during the cognisable period, namely to the legal department on the 24th of August 2024, which can be seen in document 29 of the booklet, to William Huang in Human Resources on the 28th of August 2024, which can be seen in document 30 of the booklet. The claimant also disclosed these issues to his Manager Hugo Smith on the 28th of August 2024, which can be seen in document 31 of the booklet.

The Complainant’s disclosures are clearly systemic, not merely personal grievances, as they pertain to the integrity of performance data, its manipulation, and the use of that data in processes affecting multiple employees. Under Sections 5(1) and 5(3)(b) of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, the information disclosed constitutes a “protected disclosure” because it reasonably tends to show wrongdoing, including failure to comply with legal obligations regarding accurate company records.

In the above submission, it is stated that the protected disclosure is that the Complainant had not received his accurate performance numbers for 2023. It is then stated that he was penalised for this as he was shortlisted for redundancy as a result of not having accurate performance numbers available. The Complainant says that he made this protected disclosure to Christina Fitzgerald on 4 September 2024. The text of that email reads as follows:

“After our meeting about the annual performance review 2023 today, where you have shown me an excel with the numbers with which I disagree. I would like to ask you once again for the official document. As I have repeatedly asked you for the document of the annual performance review 2023, could you send me my link to the official document of the annual performance review from 2023? I don-t want any excel as I have multiple of them with different number each of them, I would like to get the official one with the official numbers coming from the official dashboard that we had on time to be aware of our numbers every moment.

This is the document that […] gave me for the months of March, April, May, June, July and August. As Il already indicated to you at the meeting, I am requesting the document that my team leader […] didn’t send me despite the multiple requests in our 1.1 and different meetings for the whole year 2023.

I have attached you an example of the of the official document for PR with the link on the top.

Thank you in advance.”

The Complainant says that this protected disclosure was also made in writing on three occasions: on 24 August 2024 to the legal department; on 28 August 2024 to William Huang in Human Resources and to his manager Hugo Smith on 28 August 2024.

Each of these three emails are similar in nature and I think that it is worth repeating the text for the purposes of this decision:

“I am contacting you to inform you of the serious situation, which has been escalated through the relevant channels without any success.

I requested the 2023 annual performance from my team leader […]. Which was not delivered. I requested the 2023 annual performance document from my manager […] and the official document was not delivered to me either. I was only given an excel with some numbers that I do not agree with.

The problem with my current team leader comes from my previous team leader […]. I applied to the data analyst course on two occasions.

The first time my team leader told me that I could do it the next time. On the second occasion, with good productivity, they did not give me the opportunity to take the course. My team leader told me that the decision depended on the course organizers.

When I asked the course organizers, they told me that the decision depended on my team leader. When I asked my team leader for explanations as to why he was lying to me, I only received threats from my team leader.

[…] was responsible for the data analyst team in my Core Ops department and at the same time my team leader.

My productivity numbers were changed. My team leader […] gives me the performance for March, April, May, June, July and August (Document 33).

That the company did not do an investigation to give me my numbers. When I reported the facts to HR […], on June 19 -2023- they limited themselves to sending me an Excel […] with different numbers that are also incorrect (document 23). You can check it in my Lark (Reconsideration). I requested an official document that was never given to me with my numbers (document 24). In my old dashboard I had other numbers (DOCUMENT 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32) and in my performance I had different ones (Document 33). Later, the performance delivered by my T.L. […] used the numbers of the new dashboard (Document 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43) which are different from the others.

I asked my manager […] for the numbers. My TL sent me a discipline and action. I was not given the official performance document. I was sent an excel document 44) with different explanations and numbers that I do not agree with.

My current T.L. […] sent me to PIP. For this reason I had a meeting with my manager […]. I requested the document from my manager. The 2023 annual performance document was not given to me. I was given an excel with some numbers that I do not agree with. I consider that these numbers are also false. Some of the numbers that appear in the Fix Star productivity are not correct and should be those of the Fix Dynamic productivity. In addition, in some months both productivities are incorrect.

I am currently affected by the Redundancy that affects my department. Therefore, the performance value affects my dismissal. For this reason, I consider that my numbers must be sent to me.

I am contacting you so that you can have the greatest transparency of the facts. I would like to inform you that if the document is not delivered to me, I will initiate all legal procedures in the WRC.

If you need any clarification on the facts I have described or any document, please contact me for any clarification.”

The Complainant’s complaint form states that he believes falsification of productivity data is widespread in the company and his submission dated 13 November 2025 states that the disclosures are “clearly systemic”.

The Respondent maintains that this does not, and can not, constitute a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act and relies on the Complainant’s evidence to support that position.

While all parties are agreed that in proceedings involving an issue as to whether a disclosure is a protected disclosure it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that it is. The Respondent states that section 5(5A) is clearly applicable in this case and therefore it is not a relevant wrongdoing. In submissions dated 24 October 2025 the Respondent states:

“The Complainant has failed to adduce any proper evidence in support of his contention that he made a protected disclosure. On the contrary, the evidence of the Complainant simply confirms the fact that any matters raised by him during the course of his employment were matters which related exclusively to him. Such matters are expressly excluded from the ambit of the 2014 Act by virtue of section 5(A) of the 2014 Act, as inserted by the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022.”

The Respondent also stated in correspondence dated 10 December 2025 that with regard to the email of 4 September 2024, identified by the Complainant as the protected disclosure, “there is simply no basis for contending that the email in question constituted – or could possibly have constituted - a protected disclosure.”

I accept the relevant authorities which state that a complainant need not use the language of the Act in order to identify a disclosure, and the case law cited by the Complainant is acknowledged. However, it is important to note that the case law relied upon pre-dates the commencement of the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022 which came into operation on 1 January 2023. This Act contained the amendment which inserted section 5(5A) into the Protected Disclosure Act, 2014.

The Act now specifically excludes grievances solely affecting an individual worker. Because of section 5(5A), the Act does not apply to matters that are solely personal grievances affecting the reporting person. Where a complaint concerns only an interpersonal conflict between the worker and another employee, or relates exclusively to the worker’s own employment situation, it is not regarded as a relevant wrongdoing under the Act. Such matters are intended to be addressed through the employer’s grievance procedures or through any other appropriate mechanisms available to the worker under employment policies or other legal provisions. The exclusion applies where the issue is personal to the worker and does not extend beyond that individual’s own circumstances.

When it was put to the Complainant in cross examination that the issue was all about him and his performance numbers, he accepted that it was. It was put to him that the data related specifically to his own performance and he accepted that it did. He was asked if he could confirm that his own personal figures were inaccurate and he agreed that this was the case.

While the Complainant stated that he listened to some people who have some complaints about numbers, he did not go so far as to say that those complaints alleged falsification of the numbers. The Complainant did not name any colleague who had been similarly affected to support his contention that this issue affected any individual other than himself. Moreover, the Complainant did not make any assertion to his employer that this was a widespread issue. The first time, as far as I can see, that it is alleged that the matter affected anyone other than the Complainant, was in his complaint form to the WRC.

The Act exists in order to facilitate whistleblowing and to provide a mechanism whereby wrongdoing can be identified without penalisation. That is the reason that the burden of proof is on a respondent, as often a complainant will not have access to the proofs needed to conclusively prove an allegation of wrongdoing. While I accept that the burden is not on the Complainant to prove the protected disclosure, I must still assess if he has identified a relevant wrongdoing or a purely personal grievance.

Where a complaint relates solely to a complainant's personal position, it does not amount to a relevant wrongdoing and cannot attract the protection of the Act. The Respondent says that is the position in this case. The question therefore for determination is whether it has been proved that the Complainant's disclosure concerning the alleged falsification of performance data was presented as a matter affecting only his own circumstances, such that it could not properly be regarded as a relevant wrongdoing.

The emails set out above very clearly show that the Complainant was seeking access to his 2023 performance figures, and that he did not agree with the numbers. No where, in any of these communications, does the Complainant state that he believes this is a widespread issue in the company or that it is “clearly systemic”. On the contrary, the Complainant reiterates his grievance in relation to his own numbers and the fact that they are now affecting his selection for redundancy.

Having carefully considered the evidence given by the Complainant and the submissions both written and oral, I am satisfied that it has been proved that the matter complained of is personal to the Complainant and that he is the only person who can be said to have been affected by it. The communications do not disclose a broader wrongdoing affecting others or raising issues of the type contemplated by the Act. Rather, they concern a dispute or grievance relating exclusively to the Complainant’s own circumstances. In those circumstances, I find that the matter constitutes an interpersonal grievance exclusively affecting the Complainant within the meaning of section 5(5A) of the Act.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that it does not amount to a relevant wrongdoing within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, the Complainant has not made a protected disclosure for the purposes of the Act.

As the Complainant has not made a protected disclosure, he can not have been penalised for something that he has not done. Consequently, I must conclude that the complaints are not well founded.

For the reasons set out above, I find that the complaints are not well founded.

Section 5(5A) Protected Disclosures Act 2014 – interpersonal grievances