The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a HGV Driver in September 2019.  The Complainant’s employment was terminated on the 5th of February 2020.  The Complainant claimed that the termination of his employment was related to his exercising of his rights under the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.

The Complainant further claimed that he did not receive a statement in writing of his terms and conditions of employment nor did he receive his statutory minimum period of notice on termination of his employment.  The Respondent rejected these clams.

In January 2020, the Complainant reported a number of faults including brake pads on a truck maintenance form. The Complainant was informed the following day that the faults had been rectified.  However, soon afterwards a mechanic had found fault with the break pads again. The Complainant formed the opinion that the chief mechanic had by-passed the safety system on the vehicle and informed the fleet manager accordingly.

The Complainant was called to the management office on the 5th of February 2021 without notice.  He was shown a video in relation to a complaint received about his driving and was then dismissed without any notice payment. The Complainant did not receive any contract from the Respondent in relation to his terms and conditions of employment.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant’s employment was terminated within his probationary period of 6 months. The Respondent maintained that the allegations that the Complainant seeks to define as protected disclosures were not protected disclosures but were in fact part of his normal duties.

The Respondent also argued that the Complainant did not utilise the company’s grievance procedure. The Respondent also stated that the Complainant received written terms and conditions of employment upon commencement of his employment but did not return a signed copy of his contract.

In their findings, the Adjudication Officer highlighted that the Complainant did not have the one year’s service that is generally applicable to bringing a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act.

The onus was therefore on the Complainant to prove that his dismissal was because of making a protected disclosure. Having considered all the evidence, The Adjudication Officer found that the issues of vehicle defects and bringing same to the notice of the Respondent was a matter which was the function of the Complainant, as a truck driver, to detect and therefore did not constitute a relevant wrongdoing.

The Adjudication Officer considered the document in question and noted that its purpose was to draw up minimum site safety requirements for drivers visiting the site and thus keep the site incident free.

The Adjudication Officer referred to the Statutory Instrument in relation to the Act, S.I. No. 464 of 2015, Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Protected Disclosures Act 2014) (Declaration) Order 2015.  Paragraph 30 of the Code deals with the difference between a grievance and a protected disclosure:

30.  A grievance is a matter specific to the worker i.e., that worker’s employment position around his / her duties, terms and conditions of employment, working procedures or working conditions.  A grievance should be processed under the organisation’s Grievance Procedure.

A protected disclosure is where a worker has information about a relevant wrongdoing.

The Adjudication Officer held that the incident in question did not constitute a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act. The Adjudication Officer decided that a statement of employment was not issued to the Complainant and therefore this complaint was well founded, and that the Complainant was entitled to three day’s pay in lieu of his notice entitlement.

The Respondent was also ordered to pay compensation in the sum of €4,000.00 to the Complainant for breaching the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994.