Keywords: Protected Disclosure; Penalisation; Social Media; Suspension; Investigation

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in July 2017 as a dog warden. Following the euthanasia of two dogs by kennel hands, the Complainant reported concerns via email on 26 July 2020 but said no action was taken by his employer.  A few days later, the Complainant escalated the issue by reporting it to An Garda Siochana.  The Complainant said after reporting the matter to Gardai, several allegations were made against him at work. In addition, he’d made an official complaint against a colleague for threatening and abusive behaviour.

The Complainant received an invitation to an investigation meeting with regard to two complaints; (i) refusal to do on-call and (ii) social media comments he put up on Facebook.

The Complainant ultimately received a final written warning following an investigation process that was later described a ‘sham’.

The Complainant stated his sick pay was not paid, and when he requested his original signed contract and employment handbook, he was informed by management it was mislaid.

The Complainant said he was offered a severance agreement with a non-disclosure agreement, which he did not accept. Shortly afterwards, he was suspended as a result of allegations made against him by other staff members for intimidation and threatening behaviour. The investigation meeting was due to take place on the 8th of May 2021 but it had to be postponed due to a family bereavement.  The Complainant said he was docked wages for not attending the investigation meeting.

On the 1st of June, the Director of the Respondent organisation wrote to him explaining the company had lost its contract and his employment would be transferred to Dublin City Council from the 1st of July. The Complainant stated on the 27th of June, the Director found him guilty of misconduct and extended his final written warning by 12 months.

The Complainant submitted he was penalised by the Respondent for reporting relevant wrongdoings which is in breach of the Protected Disclosures legislation.

The Respondent asserted since making the disclosure, the Complainant was subject to an investigation and disciplinary process for an incident which occurred prior to the alleged whistleblowing and disciplined a second time for which he was claiming penalisation, however the Respondent stated the process, including the appeal, was at all times entirely fair. The Respondent submitted the Complainant was the subject of another investigation which was instigated by six staff alleging bullying and harassment against the Complainant.

The Respondent states it had only ten employees and there was no way the Complainant could be moved, nor any staff be kept apart while the investigation was ongoing. The Respondent said as more than half the Respondent’s staff had lodged the complaint, the only available course of action left was to place the complainant on suspension. The Respondent stated the complaint of penalisation is without merit and the actions of the employer are entirely justified.

Having very carefully examined the totality of the evidence, the Adjudication Officer found the Complainant established he was penalised for having made a protected disclosure with regard to animal welfare and veterinary pharmaceutical offences at the Respondent organisation contrary to the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.

The Adjudication Officer was satisfied the Complainant was subjected to a spurious investigation and disciplinary process and a suspension of work which was not warranted, which therefore amounted to penalisation under the Act. The Adjudication Officer further noted the Complainant was employed with the Respondent since 2017, however many of the issues giving rise to invoking the disciplinary processes seemed to have arisen following the Complainant making his protected disclosure in July 2020 to his employer and to the Gardai.

The Adjudication Officer also found the investigation and disciplinary process was flawed.

Accordingly, The Adjudication Officer ordered that the Respondent pay the sum of €18,000.00 financial compensation to the Complainant.

Guidance for Employers:

The Protected Disclosures Act 2014 protects workers in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors from retaliation if they speak up about wrongdoing in the workplace. “Protected disclosures” means, a disclosure of relevant information made by a worker. Relevant information is information that tends to show one or more relevant wrongdoings, which came to the attention of the worker in connection with the worker’s employment.

The full case is available here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2022/september/adj-00033234.html