Background:

The Complainant worked in the Respondent’s creche from May 2016. The Complainant alleged she was penalised contrary to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, for making a complaint about the ratio of staff to children in the crèche. The Complainant also submitted she was penalised for making a protected disclosure about the same issue.

The Respondent’s position was whilst the Complainant asserted that the ratio in the rooms need to be in accordance with regulations, she did not make a protected disclosure in relation to a relevant wrongdoing.

In June 2021, at a meeting of staff with the owners, the Complainant raised issues she was concerned about.  The Complainant claims the attitude of her employers changed after the meeting and she was penalised in the manner in which a complaint against her was investigated.  Arising from this investigation, the Complainant claimed she had to resign, which she did on August 4th 2021.

 The Complainant submitted she and other colleagues were considered a nuisance for insisting on staffing lunch cover so that the creche could comply with regulations under the Child Care Act.

The Adjudication Officer was satisfied the Respondent sought to cause a detriment to the Complainant and found the initiation of the investigation was intimidating and excessive. The Adjudication Officer understood the Complainant’s position that the actions of the Respondent had the effect of undermining her trust in them and that she felt she had to resign.

Outcome:

The Respondent was ordered to pay the sum of €14,000 compensation for breaches of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

In order for an employee to claim that they have been penalised under the Protected Disclosures Act, they must have a reasonable belief that a wrongdoing is occurring, has occurred or might occur. An employee must communicate what they know about the alleged wrongdoing to a prescribed person, their employer, a government minister, a legal advisor or another person. They must establish “a causal connection” between some action taken to their detriment, “a penalisation,” and the fact that they communicated with someone about a wrongdoing. In the circumstances of this case, the decision of the Respondent to contract an external consultant to carry out an investigation into what amounted to personal and professional rivalry between two employees was considered to be penalisation.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/april/adj-00035068.html