The Complainant brought this case before the Workplace Relations Commission as a result of unfair treatment by the Respondent.  The Complainant made a Protected Disclosure complaint which raised issues regarding the patient care of a particular psychologist who was a colleague of the Complainant’s.  He also filed a dignity at work complaint.  The Psychologist then filed a dignity at work complaint against the Complainant which the Complainant believed was being used against him.

The Complainant was concerned about the risk of cross contamination between the two investigations. He submitted that the penalisation against him included the delay in initiating an investigation into his protected disclosure.  He claimed that it was unconscionable to allow the delay in the investigation of the protected disclosure. The Complainant maintained that the Respondent should have allowed the first process to finish prior to completing the dignity at work process. The Complainant stressed that he was concerned about his good name.

In their submission, the Respondent denied that it penalised the Complainant for making protected disclosures or that he had suffered any detriment. The Respondent outlined that it sought to progress its investigation into the Complainant’s protected disclosures. It was determined that the Complainant’s dignity at work complaint did not fall within the dignity at work policy and no further action was required.  The Complainant refused to agree terms of reference into the protected disclosure investigation and this therefore delayed the investigation process.

The Adjudication Officer commented on the unusual nature of the case as the alleged acts of penalisation related to the Respondent’s handling of the protected disclosure. The court noted that the Respondent did not comply with its own policy in handling the Complainant’s protected disclosures.  The matters raised by the Complainant were not addressed for many months. Therefore, the Adjudicating Officer ordered the Respondent to implement its protected disclosures policy and awarded financial compensation to the Complainant of €4,000 for the loss and inconvenience incurred.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2019/september/adj-00017774.html