Complaint about workplace grievances was not a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

The Complainant was employed as a Sous Chef from February 2024 and initially lodged a complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. He later clarified in a written submission in August 2025 that his claim more accurately related to the circumstances of his departure, which he considered to be constructive dismissal (arising from a toxic work environment and unresolved workplace grievances). He explained that his concerns did not involve reporting criminal wrongdoing or breaches of statutory obligations, but rather internal issues affecting the workplace and management practices. He contended that these issues contributed to his decision to leave the employment in June 2025. The Complainant effectively accepted that the protected disclosures framework was not the most appropriate statutory basis for his complaint, as his grievances related to interpersonal and organisational matters rather than protected disclosures. He did not identify any specific disclosure of wrongdoing, nor any retaliatory treatment linked to such a disclosure.

The Respondent submitted that at the time the complaint was lodged, the Complainant remained in employment and had not resigned until June 2025. It was argued that the statutory threshold under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 had not been met because the Complainant had failed to specify any qualifying protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act. The Respondent contended that no details were provided as to the nature, timing, or content of any alleged disclosure of wrongdoing. Furthermore, the Complainant had not demonstrated that he suffered any penalisation, detriment, or adverse treatment arising from making a protected disclosure, as required under s.12 of the Act. The Respondent also noted that workplace grievances or dissatisfaction with internal conditions did not, of themselves, constitute protected disclosures under the legislation.

The Adjudicating Officer considered the complaint solely within the statutory framework of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. It was noted that s.12(1) prohibits penalisation of an employee for having made a protected disclosure. However, the Adjudicator found that the Complainant had not established that any protected disclosure, as defined under the Act, had in fact been made. The evidence indicated that the Complainant’s concerns related to internal workplace grievances and a difficult working environment, rather than disclosures of relevant wrongdoing such as breaches of legal obligations or threats to public safety. In addition, no evidence of penalisation or threatened penalisation arising from any disclosure was presented. The Adjudicator therefore concluded that the essential statutory elements were absent. Accordingly, the complaint was deemed not well founded and no redress arose under the Act.

Employers should:

• Clearly implement formal grievance policies and whistleblowing policies that expressly define what constitutes a protected disclosure and the procedures for handling each type of complaint appropriately.
   
  
• Maintain comprehensive documentation of complaints, internal responses, and any investigations undertaken. Where an employee raises concerns, employers should assess whether the issue relates to “relevant wrongdoing” under the legislation. If it does not, it should be redirected through the grievance or HR process rather than treated as a whistleblowing matter.
   
  
• Ensure managers are trained on penalisation risks and statutory obligations under s.12 of the 2014 Act. Even where a complaint is ultimately unfounded, adverse treatment linked to a genuine protected disclosure can create liability.      
  

The full case can be found here.