ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00055900
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Andrew Dan | West Wood Club Company Limited By Guarantee |
Representatives | Self-Represented | Mr Peter Duff, Solicitor |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00068028-001 | 11/12/2024 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/07/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
The parties were put under notice of the decision in the Zalewski case, that their evidence would be heard under oath or affirmation and of the penalty for perjury. Additionally, the parties were informed that they would be afforded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses and the hearing was to be held in public; the parties offered me neither objection nor reason to have the hearing held in private. Accordingly, witnesses made an affirmation to be truthful with the Commission.
I have taken the time to carefully review all the evidence both written and oral. I have noted the respective position of the parties. I am not required to provide a line for line rebuttal of the evidence and submissions that I have rejected or deemed superfluous to the main findings. I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held “…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one. Only broad reasons need be given…”.
I am required to set out ‘such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision’ per MacMenamin J. in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63
Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties under statute.
Background:
The hearing was attended by Andrew Dan (Complainant), Michael Bollard (Respondent) and the Solicitor for the Respondent. Both the Respondent and Complainant undertook under affirmation to be truthful with the Commission. Cross Examination of witnesses was not necessary, and the only documentation put before was the Complainant complaint form to the Commission. Having explained the process to the parties and heard preliminary applications the hearing was closed. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
On their complaint from the Complainant sets out that on the 11/12/2024 they had gone in to work to start their shift for 13:30 and was called to the meet the Operations Manager where he was given a letter of termination. They had not previously received any warnings, and the letter was a shock to him. The Complainant sets out that they received no notice of termination which is contractually stipulated as one week. They have never been advised of any reason for their dismissal in line with their contract. In ongoing communications during their employment no issues were raised with them by the Respondent. The Complainant has had done everything possible for the Respondent including making a good deal of personal sacrifices and believes that the way he was dismissed is unfair, shocking, upsetting and most of all distressing due to the time of year they had decided to let him go. The Complainant selected the form to show that although he did not have the required 12 months service to qualify under the act, he selected that his termination was due to having made a protected disclosure. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent made a preliminary submission that the Complainant did not have the benefit of the act and that any protected disclosure was not made out and did not exist. Based on the lack of qualifying service there was a challenge to my jurisdiction; and in the absence of a prima facie case for protected disclosure there was no case to be answered. |
Findings and Conclusions:
In dealing with the preliminary matter and for the benefit of the Complainant I explained what was happening and the burdens of proof on the parties. In essence that due to the minimised length of his service he did not have the protections of the Act, but having set out that he made a protected disclosure there was an exception. However, having set this out it was on the Complainant to explain the disclosure in line with the Acts and how it led to his dismissal. The Complainant set out the treatment he received at the hands of the Respondent and on its face, it did not describe any degree of fairness. However, as explained to the Complainant, whilst what he described lacked fairness it was not illegal. On pressing the matter of the disclosure, the Complainant could not elucidate anything that would satisfy the definition under the Acts. It was explained to the Complainant and for the benefit of the Respondent the absence of even a prima facie case and his not having obtained the 12 months service required, I could only find that I had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
For the reasons outlined above I have found that I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. |
Dated: 30/07/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Donal Moore
Key Words:
Protected disclosure, no prima facie, jurisdiction |