Stay ahead of the curve with our exclusive Q&A series, brought to you by leading law firm, A&L Goodbody LLP, designed to answer your most pressing legal questions. These expert insights provide clear guidance to ensure your HR practices remain compliant and protect your organisation.  

Has the volume of cases under the Protected Disclosures regime risen in recent years?

There has been a significant rise in complaints made to the WRC under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (as amended) (the PD Act) in recent years. The WRC’s most recent annual reported figures for 2024 record that there were 271 whistleblowing complaints received in 2024. In 2023, the WRC reported a 201% annual increase in the number of complaints made under the PD Act. 301 whistleblowing complaints were made to the WRC in 2023, compared to only 58 in 2020. We anticipate an upwards only trend going forward given how well known the PD Act now is and how frequently it is cited in letters before action from solicitors who represent employees.  

What type of Protected Disclosure cases are most common?  

We have seen a rise in cases where the complainant alleges that they were unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure in recent years.

In the main, employees need one year’s continuous service to be able to advance a claim under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2015 (the UD Act). However, there are several exceptions to this general one-year service rule, including where the dismissal is connected with the making of a protected disclosure. This exception to the one-year service rule has likely led to a rise in these sorts of claims.

What does the employee need to do to fall under this exception?

There is no statutory requirement to label a complaint as a protected disclosure or to follow a particular process when raising a protected disclosure and for this reason, many employees with less than 12 months service are belatedly seeking to argue that matters raised by them during their employment were protected disclosures in order to be able to advance unfair dismissal claims. 

Employers will however breathe a sigh of relief to know that the majority of such claims have been unsuccessful. For example, in the recently reported decision of Martins Pancis v Kilkenny Local Authority Leisure Complex Ltd (ADJ-00058945), an employee who was dismissed during his probationary period with less than one year’s continuous service brought a complaint under the UD Acts asserting that he was dismissed based on making a protected disclosure. The Adjudication Officer found that no protected disclosure had been made and that as such, the complainant lacked sufficient continuous service to bring a complaint under the UD Acts. 

What is the distinction between a protected disclosure and an interpersonal grievance?

The PD Act excludes interpersonal grievances from the remit of the Protected Disclosure regime, provided the grievance exclusively affects the worker raising the concern. Interpersonal grievances are defined as interpersonal conflicts between the worker raising the concern and another worker, or a complaint by the worker raising the concern to, or about, their employer which concerns them exclusively.

In our experience, the dividing line between an ‘interpersonal grievance’ and a ‘protected disclosure’ can often be blurred and it can prove challenging for an employer to make a call at an early juncture to the effect that a purported disclosure is not in fact a disclosure but rather simply a grievance.

Has recent WRC caselaw supported this distinction?

In a number of recent cases before the WRC, Adjudication Officers have helpfully concluded that certain matters are grievances as opposed to protected disclosures: 

• In the case of Severica Petronel Irimia v Absolute Drain Services Ltd. t/a Greenday Environmental (ADJ-00055562), the Complainant raised concerns in relation to an alleged failure to receive work breaks and issues in relation to travel time. The Adjudication Officer held, amongst other things, that the matters complained of concerned a complaint about the complainant’s employer and the matters concerned the complainant exclusively and therefore did not amount to a protected disclosure. 
   
• In the case of Hugh Rance v Cork Education and Training Board Cork Education and Training Board (ADJ-00048850), the Adjudication Officer held that matter complained of (which supposedly related  to the governance and management of music department in which the Complainant worked) amounted  in actual fact to personal grievances between Complainant and his line manager and therefore did not constitute a protected disclosure. 

For further information in relation to this topic or on how to deal with whistleblowing reports or penalisation claims in your organisation, please contact any member of the ALG Employment Team. 

A&L Goodbody LLP
Telephone: +35316492000 
Website: www.algoodbody.com