Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Neil  Magill

Elite Courier Company Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

Barry O’Mahony BL instructed by  ARAG LPL

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00073945-001

30/07/2025

The issues in contention concerned a delivery Driver who alleged Unfair Dismissal under the 1977 Unfair Dismissals Act, citing the Protected Disclosure Ground, against a Delivery Company.  The employment began on the 18th June 2025 and ended on the 28th July 2025.

The rate of pay was stated by the Complainant to have been a net pay of €550 for a 55 hour week.

The Complainant was self-represented. He gave a detailed Oral testimony supported by a Written Submission and copy correspondence with the Respondent.

He began with the Respondent in mid-June 2025. initially he shadowed an experienced colleague but soon was operating by himself. He was not aware of any employment issues. On the night of the 20th July /morning of the 21st July  2025 he had a serious domestic health issue involving his mother in law having had a bad fall.  He was unable to attend work on the 21st as his wife was attending to her mother. Three small children had to be cared for in her absence. The Respondent employer was quite hostile in his response.

On the 27th July , a Sunday, 2025, his young son fell seriously, requiring hospitalisation, his wife was also diagnosed with a serious illness. He contacted the Respondent late on the 27th to say that he could not attend work on the 28th July 2025. The Respondent contacted him later on the 28th  July to inform him that he was dismissed.

There was no Warning or HR procedures of any kind. It was a blatant Unfair Dismissal.

In his Oral testimony the Complainant stated that he had made Protected Disclosures to the Respondent concerning the conditions of the vehicles and the nature of the work practices. These Disclosures qualified him to bring a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977 even though he had less than 12 months service.

The Respondent was represented by Barry O’Mahony Bl instructed by ARAG LPL.  A comprehensive Written Submission was presented supported by Oral testimony.

In essence, the Respondent submission was that the Complainant did not have the qualifying 12 month employment service to bring a case under the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977. The suggestion that he had made a Protected Disclosure, as defined by the Protected Disclosures Act,2014, did not have any evidential standing. It simply had never happened.

Mr O’Mahony Bl cited Legal Landmark cases of Nowak v Moorehall Disability Services Limited [2025] IEHC 758 and Barrett v The Commissioner of An Garda Siochana [2023] IECA 112 in support of the Respondent case. Mr O’Mahony also quoted extensively from the 2014 Act, especially Sections 5 & 6.

Notwithstanding the Legal arguments above, the Respondent cited instances of Complainant failure to adequately grasp the details of the job, his issue with having only a UK Driving Licence ( Insurance Required a RoI licence ) and the obvious use of the Company Vehicle for personal family purposes. He arrived at the Respondent premises with a Child Seat attached in the Vehicle  - completely contrary to Company Policy. It was the Respondent view , after six weeks, that the Employment Relationship was not working and it was time to “call it a day”.

The Complainant was a decent lad but the job was not for him.

He had never made a Protected Disclosure as set out in the 2014 Protected Disclosure Act. Accordingly, he did not qualify for any exemption from the 12 month service rule.

The Complaint had to be deemed Not Properly Founded and cannot proceed.

3:1       The Legal Position – Unfair Dismissals Act,1977 and Protected Disclosures Act,2014

The Unfair Dismissals Act at Section 2(1) (a) requires a Complainant to have had a minimum of at least 12 months continuous service to qualify to bring a claim under the Act.

However, under Section 6 (1) (ba) this service requirement is waived if the Complainant has made a “protected disclosure” as defined at Section 5 of the Protected Disclosures Act ,2014.

Protected disclosures

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.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) it is immaterial whether a relevant wrongdoing occurred, occurs or would occur in the State or elsewhere and whether the law applying to it is that of the State or that of any other country or territory.

(5) A matter is not a relevant wrongdoing if it is a matter which it is the function of the worker or the worker’s employer to detect, investigate or prosecute and does not consist of or involve an act or omission on the part of the employer.

(5A) 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.

(6) A disclosure of information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings is not a protected disclosure if it is made by a person to whom the information was disclosed in the course of obtaining legal advice.

(7)[The motivation for making a disclosure is irrelevant to whether or not it is a protected disclosure

Underlining by Adjudication Officer.

In this case the Complainant had lodged his complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977 seeking to avail of the Protected Disclosures exemption to the 12 month Service Rule.

To avail of this exemption the Protected Disclosure will have to satisfy the requirement set out the Protected Disclosures Act,2014. Section 6 requires Disclosure to an “Employer of other responsible person” or under Section 7 to a “prescribed Person”.

However, all legal issues to one side, all cases rest on their own factual matrix and the evidence presented. This will be considered below.

3:2        Consideration of the Evidence, both Oral and Written, presented under Oath/Affirmation.

Both Parties were under Sworn Oath/Affirmation. It was clear that a number of incidents involving Complainant non-attendance at work for genuine family reasons had taken place. The Respondent also indicated dissatisfaction with the Complainant’s tardiness in getting a required RoI Driving Licence, his alleged slowness in getting to know the job routines and the obvious use of the Company van (Child Seat incident) for Personal Reasons.

However, and critically Cross Examination and discussions between the Parties did not lead the Adjudicator to the view that any “Protected Disclosures” or “Relevant Wrongdoings” as set out in the Protected Disclosures Act ,2014 actually took place.

It appeared that Section 5A, of the 2014 Act, underlined above, was more relevant. This was a compliant of an Unfair Dismissal, exclusive to the Complainant.  It did not meet the required definition of a Protected Disclosure sufficient to avail of Section 6 (1) (ba) of the Unfair Dismissal Act,1977.

Accordingly, the Complaint has to fail as the Complaint does not have 12 months employment service. The exemption at Section 6(1) (ba) of the 1977 Act does not apply.

The Complaint is deemed unsuccessful on required Unfair Dismissal Act, 1977, Employment Service grounds.

Unfair Dismissal, Protected Disclosures.