The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in 2013 as an Acting Inspector and Bus Driver. The Complainant claims that he was subjected to penalisation by the Respondent contrary to the Protected Disclosures Act after having made a protected disclosure.

In March 2018, the Complainant applied for a full-time Inspector’s role advertised as AVL Service Controller. The Complainant was informed that he was unsuccessful in August 2018. The Complainant requested an appeal for this decision, however, he was informed by the Respondent that there was no appeal process but that he could request feedback of the interview from his local Regional Personnel Manager. The Complainant and his two colleagues made a protected disclosure to the Respondent by letter in relation to the alleged wrongdoing which they had witnessed regarding the misappropriation of the recruitment and selection process together with the aggressive behaviour of some members of management within the organisation.

The Complainant submits that he was subjected to penalisation as a result of having made the protected disclosure. Firstly, the manner in which the Respondent handled his protected disclosure and the hostile and aggressive manner in which he was treated by the Respondent at the meeting which included being called a “bitter man” and having a “grudge”. The Complainant contended that he was left in fear for his position arising from his treatment by management at this meeting.  Secondly, the Complainant contended that he was required to re-apply for the position that he already completed on a regular basis.

The Respondent submitted that the selection process for the AVL positions was carried out in a fair and consistent manner. The Respondent stated that the Complainant along with two colleagues initiated a protected disclosure investigation following the conclusion of the selection process which was dealt with in keeping with the Respondent’s Protected Disclosures Procedures.  Therefore, the Respondent disputed the claim that the Complainant was subjected to penalisation for having made a protected disclosure. The Respondent contended that it is normal practice for employees who have been carrying out Acting Supervisor duties to re-apply for such roles as it facilitates opportunities for other employees to apply for such roles.

In their deliberations, the Adjudicating Officer noted that the Complainant adduced very credible and compelling evidence in relation to his interaction with the two senior members of the Respondent’s management in relation to the aggressive and hostile nature of this meeting. The Respondent was not in a position to refute the Complainant’s evidence on this matter. Accordingly, the Adjudicating officer accepted the Complainant’s evidence on this matter that he was admonished and treated in an aggressive and hostile manner and that it is clear such treatment clearly breaches the procedures outlined in the Respondent’s internal policy on Protected Disclosures. As a result of the outlined breaches to the Protected Disclosure Acts the Respondent was ordered to pay the Complainant compensation in the amount of €7,500.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/may/adj-00023015.html