The Complainant was appointed to the Board of the Respondent by the then Minister in June 2014 and his term of appointment expired in May 2018. The Complainant was subsequently not reappointed for a second term and he claimed that the failure to reappoint him amounted to an Unfair Dismissal.  The Complainant also claimed that he was subjected to penalisation by the Respondent after having made a Protected Disclosure.

The Complainant submitted that he carried out additional work of an administrative and quality control nature for the Dispute Resolution Service which came under the remit of the Respondent. The Complainant stated that he was paid separately by the Respondent for carrying out this additional work and he therefore had a “right” to remain in the position on the expiry of his term of appointment.

The Complainant stated that he did not receive any formal communication from the Respondent in relation to his re-appointment and he only found out that his term was not being renewed when he attended a meeting in May 2018. The Complainant then sent an e-mail to the Chairperson expressing his disappointment at not being re-appointed to the Board and the lack of communication in relation to the matter. The Complainant submitted that he made a protected disclosure to the Minister which took the form of a joint letter detailing concerns that the competitive process had not been conducted in an appropriate manner. The Complainant submitted that he was ultimately subjected to penalisation for making this protected disclosure by not being re-appointed to the Board when his term expired.

The Respondent argued that the Complainant was a statutory office-holder and not an employee and therefore was not entitled to bring a claim of Unfair Dismissal to the WRC.  The Respondent maintained that the Complainant was not retained pursuant to a “contract of employment”. Rather, the Complainant came to be on the Board pursuant to an instrument of appointment, promulgated by the Minister.

The Respondent submitted that if the Complainant had been an employee and retained under a contract of employment, which he was not, the extension of this appointment on its expiry was a matter solely for an external process governed by a different party entirely from the Respondent. Therefore, the person or entity with the statutory authority and power to extend the appointment formed no part of the Respondent organisation at all.

In relation to the Protected Disclosure, The Respondent submitted that the complaint to the Minister and the report on foot thereof were some years in the past.  Having considered the circumstances, the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant was an office holder and was not an employee of the Respondent and therefore the WRC did not have jurisdiction to inquire into this complaint.  The Adjudication Officer also found that the Complainant was not an employee of the Respondent within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977.  The Adjudicating Officer was also satisfied that the Respondent did not subject the Complainant to penalisation as a consequence of having made a Protected Disclosure. 
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/march/adj-00018461.html