ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00058182
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Marek Matusiak | Schenker (Ireland) Limited t/a DB Schenker |
Representatives |
| Robin Hyde Solicitor Alastair Purdy LLP |
Complaint:
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-00070697-002 | 09/04/2025 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 08/09/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Procedure:
Section 12 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 provides that an employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee, or cause or permit any other person to penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee, for having made a protected disclosure.
Section 12 of the of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 is a provision specifically identified in Schedule 5 Part 1 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 as being capable of being brought to the attention of the WRC by way of a complaint referred to the Director General of the WRC. The Director General in turn assigns the said complaint to an assigned Adjudication Officer who shall hear the parties, and consider any relevant evidence produced by the parties and make all appropriate inquiries into the complaint presented.
As set out in Schedule 3 of the Protected Disclosures Act of 2014 the redress for a contravention of Section 12 is set out in a decision of the Adjudication Officer and shall include
(a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,
(b) require the employer to take a specified course of action,
(c) subject to paragraph 2A, require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding—
(i) subject to clause (ii), 260 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, or
(ii) in the case of an employee who is a worker referred to in paragraph (h) of the definition of "worker" in section 3(1), and is not in receipt of remuneration, including allowances in the nature of pay and benefits in lieu of or in addition to pay, from the employer concerned, €15,000.
The Protected Disclosure Act is an Act intended to make provision for and in connection with the protection of persons from the taking of action against them in respect of the making of certain disclosures in the public interest and for connected purposes.
Pursuant to Section 5 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 a “protected disclosure” generally means a disclosure of relevant information made by a worker in the manner specified.
For the purposes of this Act information is “relevant information” if in the reasonable belief of the worker, it tends to show one or more relevant wrongdoings, and it came to the attention of the worker in a work-related context.
Matters that are relevant wrongdoings for the purposes of this Act include (but is not limited to) —
(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 etc.
A disclosure of information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings is not a protected disclosure if it is made by a person to whom the information was disclosed in the course of obtaining legal advice.
The motivation for making a disclosure is irrelevant to whether or not it is a protected disclosure. 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.
It is to be noted that pursuant to Section 5(5A) A matter concerning interpersonal grievances exclusively affecting a reporting person, namely, grievances about interpersonal conflicts between the reporting person and another worker, or a matter concerning a complaint by a reporting person to, or about, his or her employer which concerns the worker exclusively, shall not be a relevant wrongdoing for the purposes of this Act and may be dealt with through any agreed procedures applicable to such grievances or complaint to which the reporting person has access or such other procedures, provided in accordance with any rule of law or enactment (other than this Act), to which the reporting person has access.
Background:
This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.
I informed the parties that pursuant to the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 coming into effecton the 29th of July 2021 and where there is potential for a serious and/or direct conflict in the evidence between the parties to a complaint, then an oath or affirmation may be required to be administered to any person giving evidence before me. I confirm that I have administered the said Affirmation as appropriate and in order that matters might progress. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.
The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 9th of April 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.
|
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which read: Since my first inquiry regarding incorrect calculation of wages, I have been harassed by my superiors. After my first inquiry, I received a letter stating that as a result of a review of CCTV recordings, over three months ago on two specific dates during the night shift I temporarily did not have a reflective vest with the stipulation that in the event of such a situation being recorded again, disciplinary proceedings would be initiated. After my last correspondence with the payroll employee, the day after an investigation was initiated against me related to a possible error in the performance of duties, about which my supervisor did not inform me. I have been working at DB Schenker for almost 10 years and have never encountered such action against other employees for such allegations. I feel hounded and watched at work. I am 51 years old. Last year I underwent a hip replacement operation. I have repeatedly asked to be transferred to positions that are not as physically demanding as the one I am currently in. My requests are rejected despite the fact that I am a very experienced employee. I am asking for help because the atmosphere created by my superiors towards me has a very negative effect on my mental and physical health. I send letters, email correspondence, and pay slips to the address indicated in the complaint instructions. I was provided with supplemental documentary evidence in support of the Complainant’s case. This included a number of payslips and a medical report dated August of 2025. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s counter witness – the HR Business Partner. Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. As part of this process, and in the interests of fairness, I reserved my right to amend the Workplace Complaint Form so as to include complaints (under other employment statutes) which appeared to have been articulated in the Statement/narrative, but which had not been specifically particularised by this (unrepresented) Complainant. As part of this process I considered whether or not this was an IR dispute |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent had full legal representation at this hearing. The Respondent entity was represented by its HR Business Partner (AB) who gave oral evidence on behalf of the Respondent. The Respondent provided me with fulsome submission dated 1st of September 2025. The Respondent rejects that there has been a Protected Disclosure and denies any pattern of penalisation in the workplace:
An excerpt of the Respondent submission reads as follows: Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully listened to the evidence adduced in the course of this hearing. The Complainant has been working with the Respondent company for upwards of ten years. The Complainant self describes himself as a warehouse operative. Sometime in 2022 the Complainant was experiencing hip difficulties and was in particular finding it hard to walk the 12k or so which he might be expected to cover in any single 12 hour shift at the Respondent’s biggest client’s plant. With the agreement of the Complainant, the Complainant was moved to a smaller warehouse for a short period and was then brought into the Respondent ‘s own warehouse in Leixlip where the shifts did not require the same level of walking and movement. In the summer of 2024, the Complainant went to Poland to have a procedure carried out on his hip. The Complainant returned to work in October 2024. I acknowledge that the Complainant is very anxious to return to the client’s plant from which he was moved in 2022/2023. This has become something of a burning issue for the Complainant though he does not seem to have applied for any roles there that might have been advertised internally or in the newsletter or portal. The Complainant genuinely seems to believe that all he has to do is ask, and it will happen. The Complainant suggested in evidence that several of his colleagues have been moved to their preferred destinations by simply requesting this. The Respondent HR witness said that this was not ever the case and the Complainant was unable to identify a single person for whom this has happened. I do accept that there was some confusion at the end of 2025 when the Respondent sought to streamline it’s payroll. The HR Witness explained to me that there has been a legacy payment agreed with staff some time ago and which manifested itself as a “payment on the monthly payroll. This was a regular payment that did not in fact demand that additional hours be worked. The decision was made to simply incorporate this payment into the basic salary so that in November of 2024 the “Additional Hours” payment disappeared, but the basic salary payment was increased to include this additional payment. AB explained that it was better for employees as any shift or other allowance is calculated as a percentage of the basic salary so that when the basic figure had been enhanced all the allowances got a commensurate bump. It seems that the Complainant found it hard to comprehend how and why this had happened and was naturally concerned to see a class of payment disappear. He conceded that there was the commensurate bump in basic salary and he was at no loss. The Complainant believes that his concerns over this change in remuneration has become something of an irritation to his Employer who have sought to penalise him for raising issues with payroll. In this regard the Complainant has pointed me in the direction of two “letters of concern” which have been sent to the Complainant by the Employer and both of which set out workplace incidents which have been of concern to the Respondent. I have been told again by AB that these letters are intended as a heads up and are not disciplinary in nature and that one of them was sent to fifteen of the Complainant’s colleagues and concerned the dangerous practise of not wearing high viz jackets in the workplace. To my mind the two “letters of concern” sent to the complainant amounted to nothing more than normal corrective reminders about how best to perform the job engaged to be performed. They do not amount to penalisation. In the end, of course, the Complainant was unable to make a case of having made a protected disclosure. Under the Protected Disclosures legislation in Ireland, a protected disclosure is a report made by a worker about a relevant wrongdoing in their workplace, and the worker is legally protected from retaliation for making that report. However, not everything a worker reports is considered a “relevant wrongdoing.” So, if a worker makes a complaint about:
Instead, these kinds of issues are expected to be dealt with through:
I am satisfied that the complainant has raised Complaints about the employer and the employment which concern only the Complainant. In the circumstances I cannot find that the issues raised are protected disclosures. The point is that only protected disclosures get legal protection (such as protection from penalisation or dismissal). If a complaint is deemed a personal grievance instead, the worker must use other routes to seek redress. As noted, the Respondent allowed me to consider this matter in the context of an Industrial Relations dispute, but I have found that the issues raised by the Complainant have in fact largely been dealt with in a mediation process provided by the Respondent. Any recommendation I might have made has already been articulated in the outcome of that process. |
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.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 CA-00070697-002 – the complaint herein is not well-founded and I make no further direction.
|
Dated: 3rd November 2025.
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|