ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048734
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Individual | A member of a governing body |
Representatives | Mary Fay BL instructed by Denis I Finn Solicitors | Alan Dodd BL instructed by Sean Costello Solicitors |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 | CA-00059991-001 | 14/11/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 17/09/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 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.
Both parties sought to have this complaint anonymised. Given the facts of this case there is limited scope for me to grant this request. However, as I have not considered the substantive arguments of both sides in this matter or made findings, I do not feel it would be fair to name the parties and associate them publicly with bald accusations. In the circumstances I have sought to anonymise the decision as best I can.
Background:
The Complainant was a member of An Garda Síochána (“AGS”). At the relevant time associated with the complaint the Respondent was also a member. They both sat on the governing body of an organisation associated with AGS ( which I will refer to as the “Organisation” for the purposes of this decision).
Complaints were submitted by the Complainant against the Respondent and seven other members of that Organisation’s governing body on the 14th of November 2023. These cases, ADJ-00048733/48734/48735/48739/48739/48740/48741/48742 are linked and were heard together.
A hearing was held on the 17th of September 2024. At this hearing the Complainant sought to substitute the Respondent for the Organisation.
While, on the basis of the Complainant’s application, any one of the eight respondent members of the governing body could have been the substituted case, the Complainant sought that ADJ-00048733 specifically be amended owing to that respondent’s role within the Organisation at the time the complaint was submitted.
As such the request to amend the complaint and substitute the Respondent for another party is considered in that decision. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant does not allege that they were an employee of the Respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent submits that this complaint is misconceived and cannot come under the scope of Section 12 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (“the Act”). The WRC has jurisdiction only for alleged breaches of that section. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Respondent is correct. There is no employment relationship, purported or otherwise, between the parties in which to base and alleged breach of Section 12 of the Act. As such this complaint cannot succeed. |
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.
I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 22nd May 2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|