PDD2515

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00037355 (CA-00048671-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 25 August 2024. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7 October 2025.

The following is the Court's Decision:

DECISION:

This is an appeal by Renata Caplan (“the Complainant”) against a Decision of an Adjudication Officer given under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (“the Act”) against Maybin Support Services Ire Ltd (“the Respondent”). 

The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was not well founded.

The Complainant lodged an appeal of that decision and a decision made under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 HSD2518 to the Labour Court.

1. Preliminary Matters:

A preliminary matter was raised by the Respondent in relation to the time limits under the Act for lodging a complaint. The Respondent submits that the complaint was statutorily barred as it was not presented to the Adjudication Services within the relevant statutory timelines. The complaint was lodged to the Workplace Relations Commission on 16 February 2022. The relevant period for consideration by the Court in the first instance is the period from 17 August 2021 until the 16 February 2022.

Rule 34 of the Labour Court Rules provides that: -

“The Court may, in its discretion, give a preliminary ruling on any aspect of the case where it is satisfied that time and expense may be saved by the giving of such a ruling and/or where it has the potential to be determinative of the case”.

The Court proposed that it would hear and decide the preliminary matter of time limits in the first instance. It advised the parties that should it decide that the appeal was lodged within time, a further hearing would be scheduled, and the Court would proceed to consider the substantive appeal. If the Court decided that the complaint was lodged outside the time limits set down in the Act, the appeal would be found to be out of time and statute barred.

By agreement with the parties, the Court proceeded on that basis and heard submissions from both parties on the preliminary matter. The parties lodged supplementary submissions on the preliminary matters raised.

2. Summary of Respondent’s position

The complaints raised by the Complainant were not protected disclosures. She was never penalised for raising matters.

The complaint is statutorily barred as it was not presented to the WRC within the period of six months beginning on the date that the contravention relates.  No reasonable cause has been identified by the Complainant, to extend the timeframe for consideration of his complaint.

No application was made by the Complainant to extend the statutory at the WRC hearing.

The Complainant was at all times represented by a professional registered Trade Union, who acted on her behalf throughout the entirety of her case and would have been fully aware of the statutory time limits in filing complaints to either the Labour Court or the Workplace Relations Commission.

Accordingly, as no reasonable cause exists, we respectfully suggest that the Complainant's claims cannot proceed.

3. Summary of Complainant’s position

The Complainant was employed as a cleaner in a public hospital and raised serious health and safety concerns affecting staff and patients. The complaint was lodged within 6 months of the final act of detriment and, therefore, within the statutory time limit under Section 41(6).

On 21 July 2021, she was threatened with disciplinary action for making a protected disclosure under the Act. The Complainant opposed this threat and the dispute remained active until 17 August 2021, when management stated that the matter was “closed.”

The Complainant was absent on medically certified sick leave from May 2020 due to stress caused by the unsafe working conditions and the disciplinary threat. This leave continued uninterrupted until April 2023. During this period the employer made no contact with the Complainant for approximately six months. The Complainant was excluded from company mailing lists and denied access to her employer account, preventing her from receiving updates or participating in workplace processes. The Complainant remained in dispute until the end of March 2023.

The 2005prohibits any act or omission that affects an employee to their detriment in retaliation for raising safety concerns. This includes threats, exclusion, failure to resolve complaints, and reassignment. The Complainant experienced a continuous pattern of penalisation from July 2021 to April 2023, including:

• Medically certified sick leave sustained by employer conduct
• Exclusion from company mailing lists and employee systems
• Ongoing dispute over contract of employment
• Lack of resolution of health and safety concerns

These conditions persisted until April 2023 and represent a continuing pattern of penalisation. Therefore, the final act of detriment is not confined to 21 July 2021, but includes the ongoing exclusion and disadvantage sustained through employer omissions.

(ii) An application to extend the time frame for consideration of contraventions of the Act

The absence of a formal application at first instance does not preclude the Court from considering reasonable cause for delay.

In this case, the Complainant was involved in an ongoing dispute over her contract status and unresolved health and safety issues. Throughout the relevant period, she was on medically certified sick leave and excluded from workplace systems and communications. These factors created a procedural and psychological barrier to an earlier filing of her complaint. Furthermore, the public interest in hearing this case, given its implications for hospital safety and whistleblower protection, reinforces the appropriateness of granting an extension. Dismissing the case on technical grounds would undermine the protective purpose of the legislation.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Stokes v Christian Brothers High School Clonmel [2015] IESC 13 apply provides authoritative support for the complainant’s position, which confirms that procedural fairness is a legal requirement and focuses on the legal standards of audi alteram partem, disclosure of evidence, and impartial adjudication. The Labour Court, as an appellate body, has the authority and responsibility to correct procedural defects and ensure that justice is administered in accordance with these principles.

4. Relevant Law

The relevant statute in place at the time of the complaint to the WRC was the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 of which sections 5 in relevant part defines a protected disclosure as follows:

5. (1) For the purposes of this Act “protected disclosure” means, subject to subsection (6) and sections 17 and 1, a disclosure of relevant information (whether before or after the date of the passing of this Act) made by a worker in the manner specified in section 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10.

(2) For the purposes of this Act information is “relevant information” if—

(a) in the reasonable belief of the worker, it tends to show one or more relevant wrongdoings, and

(b) it came to the attention of the worker in connection with the worker’s employment.

(3) The following matters are relevant wrongdoings for the purposes of this   Act—

(a) that an offence has been, is being or is likely to be committed,

 (b) that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation, other than one arising under the worker’s contract of employment or other contract whereby the worker undertakes to do or perform personally any work or services,

(c) that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,

(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,

(e) that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged,

 (f) that an unlawful or otherwise improper use of funds or resources of a public body, or of other public money, has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,

(g) that an act or omission by or on behalf of a public body is oppressive, discriminatory or grossly negligent or constitutes gross mismanagement, or

(h) that information tending to show any matter falling within any of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be concealed or destroyed.

(5) A matter is not a relevant wrongdoing if it is a matter which it is the function of the worker or the worker’s employer to detect, investigate or prosecute and does not consist of or involve an act or omission on the part of the employer.

(7) The motivation for making a disclosure is irrelevant to whether or not it is a protected disclosure.

(8) In proceedings involving an issue as to whether a disclosure is a protected disclosure it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that it is.

Statutory Time Limits

Section 41(6) and 41 (8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, provides as follows:

“(6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.”

“(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.”

5. Deliberations and Findings

The Complainant in this case relies on the same set of facts to ground her complaint of penalisation under the 2014 Act as in a separate complaint made by her under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.

Both complaints were lodged to the WRC on the same date. The same acts of penalisation are alleged in both cases.

In decision HSD2518 the Court found that the Complainant has failed to provide evidence that she was subject to penalisation under the 2005 Act during the statutory timelines set out at Section 41(6) and 41 (8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 for that complaint.  As a result, the Court found that the complaint was not well founded.

For the same reasons outlined in that HSD2518, the Court finds that the Complainant has failed to make out a case that she was subject to penalisation for the making of a protected disclosure act under the 2015 Act during the cognisable period in this complaint.

As a result, the Court finds that the complaint of penalisation under the Act is not well founded.

The Adjudication Officer’s decision is upheld.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
CC	______________________
26 November 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be in writing and addressed to Ms Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.