Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Noel  Wrafter

Duffy Property Group T/A BML Duffy Property Group Ltd

Representatives

Self-represented 

Barry Duffy, Director

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00067045-001

31/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00067045-002

31/10/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

CA-00068167-001

17/12/2024

The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 2 April 2024. His employment was terminated on 3 June 2024.

On 31 October 2024, the Complainant referred to the Director General of the WRC his claim pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 as amended.

On 17 December 2024, the Complainant referred to the Director General of the WRC his claim pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

The Complainant alleges that he was dismissed for having made a protected disclosure.

The Complainant’s submissions are summarised as follows.

The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Facilities Manager at an IPAS centre.

Protected Disclosure

On 2 April 2024 the Complainant conducted an initial inspection of the external grounds, boundaries and entrance to the property and relayed his concerns to his direct manager, Mr Duffy (Director). The Complainant assessed the risks as medium to high. Those risks were that the property had no gates, gaps in the perimeter which would allow unsafe access/egress to and from the property which would lead to the main road which has a high volume of traffic. A number of children were expected on site. The Complainant submitted that he measured for gates while he was at the property, but these were still not installed by the time of his dismissal.

The Complainant submitted that the perimeter protections that were to be put in place were ceased under the written instruction of Mr Duffy.

The Complainant submitted that towards the end of April 2024, Mr Duffy had engaged with an employee from another division to come to site (without the Complainant in his role of Facility Manager being informed) to cram 4 beds into a small space despite the Complainant outlining his concerns earlier that day. This was in breach of the IPAS contract conditions. The Complainant submitted that he informed the Respondent that he was going to leave over the incident, that the Respondent was breaching health and safety, and that the Complainant was never provided with accommodation as set out in the employment contract. The Complainant submitted that Mr Duffy stated that he did not want the Complainant to leave and that he was happy that the Complainant was ensuring that health and safety was being adhered to which he fully supported. He stated that it would not happen again and wanted the Complainant to stay. The Complainant agreed on that reassurance not to leave.

The Complainant submitted that in May 2024, there were major breaches of health and safety. Concerns were raised initially verbally and then by email. The last email sent on 27 May 2024 raising serious concerns was never responded to by any of the four directors or any other employees.

The Complainant submits that he had concerns that week relating to Garda vetting. The Complainant was the designated contact person (DCP) for Garda vetting, which meant that he would have dealt with Garda vetting of all individuals. The Complainant submits that the Respondent tried to get some individuals Garda vetted without him knowing. The relevant Garda officials contacted the Complainant with inquiries as to who had signed the application (Mr Duffy).

The Complainant submits that while he was on annual leave, he got a call from Mr Duffy to state that he was not to return to work and that he was dismissed with immediate effect. No explanation was given. No concerns had been raised previously regarding the Complainant’s performance.

The Complainant submits that, following his request for data access, he was provided with data that was not redacted and included copies of emails between an insurance company's assessor and Mr Duffy. The assessor intended to visit to review the site and the relevant safety statement which the Complainant was creating. The Complainant submits that on two occasions, the assessor was directed away from proposed dates on the basis that the Complainant was allegedly not available. However, the Complainant submits that google maps would show that he was on site those dates. The Respondent eventually directed the insurance company to visit the site when the Complainant was on annual leave. The Complainant had never been made aware of this until these emails were produced. The Complainant submits that the assessors would have needed to meet him as he participated in preparing the Safety Statement for site, RAMS and overall health and safety.

The Complainant further submits that Mr Duffy had already made him aware that the Fire Cert was for 34 residents, 26 in the main building and 8 in the annex building. However, the main building had 28 residents, 6 in the annex building, and an additional 4 security guards residing in the annex building.

The Complainant submits that for nine weeks with the Respondent there was a great rapport with all parties involved. He had made it known from the start that he would drive the role based primarily on health and safety. He elaborated on the reasoning for it in outlining a workplace accident he had witnessed which occurred as a result of protective measures not being put in place.

The Complainant submits that after a month it became apparent that he was going to be given very little control in his role and that everything would be dictated from the head office, ignoring his 40 years of experience. That included sending another employee to site to carry out work without his prior knowledge and all instructions coming from Mr Duffy.

The Complainant submits that his role was twofold. While the primary role was as Facility Manager, he was also tasked with transporting the residents to/from the property for various types of appointments using a 17-seater minibus. While the former should have taken precedence, the latter took up most of his time.

The Complainant submits that it was stated publicly through an interview in a local radio that there would be a full-time manager and assistant manager. However, this was never the case. The Complainant was not made aware of this prior to his employment or any time after that.

The Complainant submits that nearly 2 months into his employment, he noticed that there was less control of the property, or the subcontractors and that head office were controlling everything in its entirety.

Two weeks prior to his dismissal, the Complainant raised a few issues in writing (mostly verbal up to that point), primarily relating to health and safety, but these were not responded to or addressed.

The Complainant submits that security cover was his main concern. Mr Duffy repeatedly stated that he wanted to step back from 2 persons per shift to one due to the cost involved. The Complainant disagreed with this move and outlined the health and safety reasons for that. Mr Duffy ignored that and made the change without notifying the Complainant. The Complainant submits that within 24 hours his concerns were proven with two children on the brink of running out on to the main road chasing a ball. The security guard was on his break and had no cover. Luckily, the Complainant spotted them and shouted after them to return to the house.

Health and Safety concerns raised

The Complainant submits that on Monday 20 May 2024 at 9:10am, Mr Duffy emailed him listing things to focus on that week.

1.      Get the 6 new arrivals checked in and get them on a shopping trip.

2.      Finding a new IT provider to fix the internet.

3.      Install new ovens.

4.      Put a warning sign on the power switch in kitchen so power doesn't go down again.

5.      For anyone who doesn't have a bank account or who needs to change their addresses, bring them to the bank.

6.      Work on info needed for insurance inspection.

Mr Duffy stated that he would arrange trips to a doctor for the residents. He said that he was working on getting a driver and an eight-seater for backup and to cover when the Complainant was away.

He further stated that, regarding “outside of the new fence around the septic tank “– he did not want any more alterations to the building or shed.

On the same day at 10:13am, the Complainant replied as follows:

“Please see my responses in Blue.

1.      Get the 6 new arrivals checked in and get them on a shopping trip

1.      [named] are too slow coming back to us, can you find a new IT provider to fix the internet

Noted [in blue]

1.      Install new Ovans

That is planned for this week [in blue]

1.      Put a warning sign on the Power Switch in Kitchen so power doesn't go down again

Noted [in blue]

1.      For anyone who doesn't have a bank account, bring them to AIB in [location] (I believe some people need to change their address also?

To date, anyone that needs a bank account has gone to AIB in [location] as part of the shopping trip. Two of last week's arrivals have gone to AIB to change their address from [location] to [location]. [in blue]

1.      Work on info needed for Insurance inspection

That is already in hand. I have received the documentation requested from [named] Security last Friday night that is required for the insurance inspection. [named] is to send a letter of survey for the insurance inspection. I will be continuing with the RAMS this week. The Company Safety Statement I am going to leave in your hands. [in blue]

I will arrange trips to Doctor for residents who need it

Please speak to [named] of the [named] on [mobile number] regarding appointments for [named three individuals]. He can arrange appointments in a practice in [named location]. Failing that, [named] in [named location]. The rest will have to go to the Walk in Clinic in [named location] to get in the system [in blue]

I'm working on getting a driver & an 8 seater for backup and to cover when you are away

If you are getting an 8 seater then you will need something along the lines of a Mercedes Sprinter or similar. That is because they have a large boot space for shopping. This is an issue already with the Minibus [in blue]

Outside of the new fence around the septic tank I don't want any more alterations to the building or shed

[Named] is to do the fencing around the septic tank and a couple of exposed areas where kids can get out to neighbours or the rear field. I spoke with [named] about the Laundry and said that was put on hold but that you would have to get an engineer to survey the building to ensure we get it done properly. The only other job was a gate using the picket fence for the septic tank to put up a gate between the laundry and Steel shed to prevent kids getting around the back where there is access to the field and exhausts from the boilers. [in blue]

Outside of what you have listed, I have a very long list of items to get through. Examples are:

1.      Now that we are registered for Garda Vetting, I have to get the security Guards on site to fill out forms for Garda Vetting.

2.      I, as a manager, have to do compulsory online courses for GV.

3.      I have to produce a Child Safety Statement for GV and Insurance.

4.      Because we are now registered for GV, IPAS have been informed. IPAS have compulsory courses that I (and other centre managers) have to complete.

5.      Office equipment is due today so I need to set up a desk for myself at least because I have children and residents constantly coming to me. Hopefully, out of sight, out of mind.

6.      Have to chase an IT company to sort out the internet. This also is affecting me with the link to the printer.

7.      I have kids that have places for schools but have to help the parents to fill out those forms correctly as the schools have to apply for additional resources soon.

8.      I have to help the residents get their HSE money transferred to here from their last place of residence. To note, after all the work that CISC has done, apparently that is not gone through the system. The residents approached me last Friday as they were informed that they had to go to INTREO in [named location] to change their address. To support their request I contacted INTREO myself to verify their request and they were correct. Last Friday afternoon I had to transfer 8 families to [named location], wait for them and then transfer them back

9.      Because of getting medical attention for critical residents and replying to emails, I am not getting out of here until late most evenings. 7pm last Friday as an example but similar times throughout.

10.   The new residents have little to know english so I am having to spend extra time with them. Other residents have raised an issue with them and their body odour which is excessive. Security has raised that issue also.

This is just a sample of what is happening here at present and the above list is not exhaustive. All jobs are being put on a priory list as I deem fit.

As part of the fire upgrade, in the short term, I need to order fire door closers as recommended by [named]. They are €160 each and the cheapest in Screwfix. I am looking at numbers required at the moment (not many) but presently fire doors are being held open which is illegal.”

The Complainant submits that at 10:30am Mr Duffy replied: “Thanks Noel, I'll leave it to you to deal with [named]. just let me know where they need to go and when. Regards, Barry”

The Complainant submits that, having raised concerns verbally initially with Mr Duffy, on 26 April 2024, the Complainant sent him an email relating to beds being installed in a room without the Complainant’s knowledge and the issues surrounding it. Mr Duffy forwarded the email to the co-owner. The Complainant submits that they had a phone conversation on the same day where he outlined his concerns and grievances. Mr Duffy requested that the Complainant did nothing, but they would have a meeting to resolve all. They had a meeting on 29 April 2024 on site, in Mr Duffy’s car, where the Complainant informed Mr Duffy that he was going to leave as he was going over his head and in doing so was breaching health and safety along with breaching the contract conditions he had with IPAS/DCEDIY.  Mr Duffy had agreed to allow the Complainant to operate in line with safety, health and welfare polices as set out in the 2005 Act.

The Complainant submits that by May 2024 this agreement had been broken again. Mr Duffy was ignoring the Complainant’s concerns centred around health and safety and in particular, the safety and welfare of the children on site. Mr Duffy continued to exclude the Complainant from any decisions related to the site including reducing the amount of security on site which affected the monitoring of the front entrance which had no gate. The Complainant was informed by a security guard that Mr Duffy had pulled back from two to one security guard on 24hr cover with immediate effect. This reduced significantly security protection due to the security personnel having to deal with resident queries/assistance, having to provide consumables from a locked press, etc. away from the reception of the property.

The Complainant submits that within 24 hours he had to stop two children running out along the driveway out on to the road. Following on from that the Complainant had to cease, under written instruction any works (health and safety work included in these works) with immediate effect.

The Complainant submits that Mr Duffy was using a local person to transport residents despite raising concerns that he was not insured to carry passengers for reward, not Garda vetted, and not an employee of the company. Despite raising this concern, Mr Duffy continued to do so even while the Complainant was on annual leave.

The Complainant submits that he had to raise concerns in writing as Mr Duffy was no longer communicating with him on any matters. When the Complainant raised the concerns in writing, neither Mr Duffy nor any other employee had responded to the content of the email. This was the Monday prior to the Complainant’s employment being terminated while on annual leave.

The Complainant submits that on the day before annual leave, he was progressing with Garda vetting for the employees and contractors for the property. He was the Designated Contact Person (DCP) and was assigned this position by D Property Group. A member of the IPAS Garda Vetting team had informed him of this a number of weeks prior. Shortly afterwards the Complainant was contacted by Garda vetting employee with a query. It transpired that Mr Duffy had signed off an application, but he had excluded the other individuals the Complainant had highlighted. In particular, an employee coming to site to carry out maintenance under Mr Duffy’s instruction and two women who were coming to site on Wednesdays for 4 hours work at the request of Mr Duffy, and a driver.

Following all of these incidents, on 3 June 2024, the Complainant was called on his work mobile. He didn’t answer as he was on annual leave. He then received a phone call to his personal number. The Complainant submits that Mr Duffy terminated his employment during this telephone call. The Complainant was due back to work the following day. He informed Mr Duffy that he was not going to accept a phone call and requested to put it in writing and to outline the reason(s) for his instant dismissal.

The Complainant submits that Mr Duffy sent a letter by email 45 minutes later but there was no explanation as to why the Complainant’s employment was terminated. In the letter, Mr Duffy specifically referred to the confidentiality clause despite the Complainant previously informing him that any health and safety issues overrides any confidentiality clause.

The Complainant submits that he was also made aware by Mr Duffy that the company was not compliant with the Fire Certification, as outline above.

The Complainant submits that, prior to his departure, Mr Duffy advertised for an assistant manager/driver and sourced a driver. The Complainant was excluded from any of the processes. The Complainant submits that an assistant manager was employed a week after he left, at half the wage and under the impression that there was already a manager on site. The site was vacant of management for one week after the Complainant’s departure.

The Complainant submits that the driver had been in while he was on annual leave and the emails provided showed that he was insured on an 8-seater van and that the insurance company were not aware that it is for the purposes of transporting IPAS residents.

Summary of direct evidence and cross-examination of the Complainant

At the hearing, the Complainant reiterated the sequence of events as outlined above.

The Complainant referred to his email to Mr Duffy of 27 May 2024, which he believed constituted him making the protected disclosures.

“As you are aware, we had a discussion last month regarding issuing an instruction to [named] to come to [named location] to install 4 single beds into room 14 despite me stating the previous day that they would not fit. As part of that discussion I stated that you had overridden my decision, I was not going to be micromanaged and that I had a wealth of experience across the board relating to properties including mechanical, electrical, facilities management, health and safety to name but a few of my skills to date. I also stated that you did this without informing me despite being employed as the on site Facility Manager. It was agreed mutually that it would not happen again and that I would be kept in the loop and discuss any decisions that would affect the running of the property

 Prior to that, I clearly stated that I would operate primarily with Health and Safety as a priority due to a colleague dropping to his death on a site I worked on in the 90's in which you stated that you fully supported that and wanted me to ensure that the site was compliant. As I stated clearly, my first priority is the children, followed by the adults, followed by myself and finally, your company and maintaining its good reputation. It was also pointed out that my contract was, and still is, null and void for a number of reasons which I will address later. I must also point out that despite any confidentiality clause in the contract, Health, Safety and Welfare concerns will supersede that.

The Complainant then listed the following, which he alleged constitute protected disclosures.

1.      Septic tank fencing

Monday, the 20th of May I received an email from you outlining what you wanted me to do (micromanaging) and not to proceed with any (Health and Safety) projects bar the fencing surrounding the septic tank. I outlined some of the priorities and stated the list was not exhaustive yet no direct response to those critical items.

2.      Security guards

Following on from that I received a call from [named] Security followed by one of the Security Guards to state that you had instructed the company to step back to one guard covering the 24/7 contract. I was never informed of this and to date this was not discussed. I raised concerns about this with you on a number of occasions, yet this was executed without discussion.

Following on from this change, on Tuesday the security guard asked me if he could go for his break in which I agreed as he is legally entitled to. In fact, the company gives them 2 hours of a break over a 12 hour shift. While I walked past reception I noticed that the guard had gone for his break but the door was opened. When I looked out the door I noticed 2 young children kicking and chasing after a ball towards the ungated entrance. Only for me shouting after them they were gone out on the road. I have a picture taken of them and the security desk empty. While it is up to the parents to look after their children, even with the best will in the world, it only takes a second for a child to slip out of eye sight. This is reflected in the risk assessments.

In addition to their breaks, they are also entitled to go for toilet breaks which means without the second guard the entrance is not monitored. I have raised the issue of guarding this opening onto the road as a serious health and safety issue with you.

3.      Driver

Tuesday the 21st, when I dropped off the residents to the Town Hall in [named location], I was approached by a Ukrainian Couple. They started ranting about a driving job which I knew nothing about. The husband handed me his licence and yet I still knew nothing about it. When I questioned further what they were on about they showed me the communication on WhatsApp and that it was with you. I told them I knew nothing about it and to contact you directly. I did note that the husband with the drivers licence had very poor English as he had to get his wife to interpret everything for him. Again, not kept in the loop nor informed prior. Later that day I received a message from you stating that the husband of [named location] cleaner was coming to collect [names] to bring them to [named location]. This you executed without prior discussion. For the record, he is not an employee of the company, he is not vetted and not insured (or licenced) to carry passengers in exchange for money. This is in breach of a number of regulations.

4.      Trip to [hospital] and hours of work

Wednesday the 22nd, after returning in the minibus I was notified by security that a resident ([named]) had collapsed on her ensuite bathroom and had been bleeding prior to that. After an initial assessment and discussion with the emergency services, it was agreed that she was to be taken to [named] Hospital. She wanted [name] to accompany her. When I discussed about following the ambulance, the paramedic advised me to give it a few hours as it would take time to get her into the system. I gave my number to both women and told [name] to keep me informed. I stayed at [named location] and kept messaging [name]. I took the decision to drive to [hospital] after 11pm as one or both would have to return later in the night/morning. [Name] was eventually seen after midnight and discharged after 1.30am. While I waited for the ambulance I informed Pauline what had happened. The following day I updated her. I told her that it was 3.30am that I got home but had to be back by 9am to take residents to english classes. She asked if I had informed you in which I replied, no. The reasons were that I get no support from you, not keeping me in the loop and that I did not want the residents travelling in an unlicensed as had happened on Tuesday. I stated the same reason when she said she would talk to you about driving residents for the rest of the day and that I wanted no hand in what was going on. The point was proved when you rang me to find out what had happened, I gave you the full details including the times I got home and returned in which you ignored, used my own vehicle and use of the minibus would have breached the European laws for professional drivers regarding rest periods. There was no mention of reimbursement for the fuel spent that night or the 2 Saturdays I had to travel to prepare the place for arrivals as I had no support. I will address that in further detail later. To note, the company and its directors have a legal responsibility to ensure a Duty of Care to all residents, contractors and equally as important, its employees.

5.      Driver

Following consultations with nurses on site to interview residents about their health and vaccines, I already knew that [name] needed to see a Doctor as she had been sick for a while but had not informed me until that morning and despite not being able to breach patient confidentiality, it was made clear that [nationality] child, [name], urgently needed to see a doctor. Again the same arrangement was made with the same risks coupled with the fact it was a 14 year old child and the driver not being Garda vetted.

6.      Card and expenses

I have discussed an expense card for use at the property for items that cannot be ordered and it was agreed that an expense card would be issued. I was issued with a Revolut card but after receiving the card I was told that it would not work and that I would have to use my own cash, input it every 2 weeks into a spreadsheet for payment. Following on from that it was input the receipts into an app called Xero and it would be paid weekly. The issue is that I have to carry the liability but in addition to your email on Monday which hints of cash flow issues, I had to help a resident with her revolut card last friday and noted that she can receive credit for shopping yet I can't? Going forward I will no longer be using my personal cash for company items when it's clear that revolut works for others.

7.      Press release

As you are aware, a press release was issued on the 18th of April this year. This I discussed with you.

“Questions and Responses from the Department of Education

The property is owned and operated by Alber Capital Limited with at least two members of staff on-site 24 hours a day. There will be a manager, an assistant manager, two cleaners and licensed security staff on site at all times. The facilities management company has previous experience in the provision of accommodation centres for IPAS.”

From this interview it clearly states that there is a Manager and Assistant Manager in place which of course there isn't. But to verify the statement, I am going to chat with a long term colleague of mine who is a journalist/presenter for this radio station who can request an FOI request. To note, there was only ever an ad for a Managers position, not an assistant manager also. As there is no assistant manager to date, I am left inundated with work but the driving of the bus is taking me away from the critical items like resident health, locating doctors, dealing with the various agencies, trying to get Garda vetting off the ground, completing risk assessments, onsite works etc. You are already aware of all these issues and they are not exhaustive.

I have to reiterate the point that I have no support for this. Because of the workload I have to work late hours with no breaks on most days due to the demands of the job. 3 of the mothers appear to have noticed this as they have provided me with food, unsolicited, on 4 occasions. To note, I need breaks as I have been recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.

On the 25th of January this year I applied for the role based on the content of the advertisement on Indeed. As you are aware, I contacted you on the 1st of February as the ad was taken down to see if the role had been filled. The content can be reviewed on those emails. For the record, this ad was resurrected after the contract was issued.”

The Complainant went on to discuss the details of his contract. However, at the hearing he did not assert that these matters were protected disclosures.

The Complainant said that an additional matter raised related to the attempt to fit 4 single beds into a room, as per the opening paragraph of the email above. The Complainant said that he contacted Mr Duffy about the issue and Mr Duffy agreed with him and asked him not to leave his employment (alleged protected disclosure 8).

Further issue with regard to a fence/gate and the access to main road was also raised (alleged protected disclosure 9).

The Complainant further alleged that he raised the matter of the cleaners with Ms Duggan on 16 May 2024. He stated that the cleaners were not Garda vetted (alleged protected disclosure 10).

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant listed a number of other matters which, in his view, were inconsistent with health and safety regulations. However, the Complainant did not assert that these matters were encompassed by the scope of this complaint.

The Complainant said in his evidence that part of his role was to conduct risk assessment and report to Mr Duffy what needs to be done. 

In reply to Mr Duffy’s submission, the Complainant agreed that the gates were installed following Monday after his dismissal. He further confirmed that on 20 May 2024, a septic tank fence was installed. The Complainant disputed the position of a named employee; he asserted that the employee was not an assistant manager. He also said that there had never been any discussions about his performance.

The Respondent submits as follows.

Background

The Complainant commenced his employment with the Respondent on 2 April 2024 under a permanent, full-time contract for the role of Facility Manager. His position also involved resident transport duties as outlined in his signed employment contract. The Complainant’s employment was terminated on 3 June 2024 with one months’ notice, in accordance with Clause 21.1 of his contract. He was not required to work during the notice period. All statutory and contractual entitlements have been paid in full.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant did not make a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. His complaints were operational in nature and related to property management, not to unlawful wrongdoing. The Respondent acted in good faith in addressing concerns raised, including perimeter security, insurance preparation, and Garda vetting. The timing of the dismissal was unrelated and coincidental. There is no causal link between his emails and his dismissal.

The Respondent lawfully terminated the Complainant’s employment in accordance with his employment contract. Clause 21.1 permits either party to terminate the contract with one month’s notice. The Respondent exercised this right following ongoing operational challenges and concerns about suitability for the role. There was no finding of misconduct, but rather a fundamental misalignment in expectations and working style. The Respondent is entitled to end employment with notice under contract terms and did so without malice or prejudice.

As the Complainant was employed for less than 12 months, the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977– 2015 does not apply per section 2(1)(a), unless dismissal was for a prohibited reason, which is categorically denied.

Conclusion

The Complainant’s employment was ended lawfully, with notice, and without prejudice. The Respondent denies that any protected disclosure was made or that the dismissal was unfair or discriminatory. The terms of employment were clear and honoured.

At the adjudication hearing, Mr Duffy said that there was no dispute that the Complainant raised the matter of septic tank as part of his role. The Respondent acted on it, and it was secured with a fence.

Regarding the matter of security, Mr Duffy said that the Respondent contracted an external security company to provide a security service. All security guards were Garda vetted. Mr Duffy said that IPAS inspected the property and were happy to extend the contract for another year.

Regarding the driver, Mr Duffy accepted that, at the time, the named driver was not an employee of the Respondent, and he drove his own vehicle. Mr Duffy said that the arrangement with the driver was made to take pressure of the Complainant who was complaining about the amount of work he had. The driver in question is now Garda vetted and in the Respondent’s employment.

With regard to the alleged protected disclosure 4, Mr Duffy said that the Complainant was not instructed to drive to the hospital, he did this on his own accord without seeking instructions. The Complainant only informed Mr Duffy about the trip on the next day.

Regarding the payment card (alleged protected disclosure 6), Mr Duffy said that expenses are reimbursed on receipt. The Respondent does not issue prepaid cards.

Regarding the matter of beds, Mr Duffy said that they tried to figure out what would fit where. As the Complainant was not too keen on carrying furniture, a named person was sent to help. They tried it out, it did not work, and the beds were taken out. The room was rearranged before the residents arrived.

In relation to the fence, Mr Duffy said that this could only be done after the previous owners moved out. While it took time, electric gates were ordered, and the installation process progressed during the Complainant’s employment.

With regard to the allegation that the cleaners were not vetted, Mr Duffy said that it is incorrect. Mr Duffy said that they were vetted. They were self-employed and furnished weekly invoices.

Mr Duffy said that the Complainant was the manager and a named employee [who helped with the beds] was an assistant manager.

Mr Duffy said that the Complainant was totally overwhelmed in his role. He did not provide the service he was expected to. The Respondent wanted it to work but, at the end, it did not. The Complainant interfered and kept telling security guards what to do; he was not happy with the expenses issue. Mr Duffy said that the Complainant was not managing the facility but continuously creating problems. Mr Duffy said that the Complainant was not doing much at the start as he was sick. There was an office provided for him.

Mr Duffy said that after the “bed issue”, the Complainant decided that he would walk out, straight after commencing in the employment. Mr Duffy said that he tried to calm him down.

The Respondent answered, addressed and was getting to resolve all the health and safety issues raised but the Complainant was impatient. They installed the CCTV, brand new fire alarms, safety statement is in place, all are Garda vetted, certain equipment was decommissioned. He said that he did take this seriously, but the Complainant did not understand that it took time.

At the end, the Respondent decided to part ways and employ a new manager. But it had nothing to do with the issues the Complainant raised.

The fact of dismissal is not at issue in this complaint.  It was not disputed by the parties that the Complainant was dismissed on 3 June 2024. The issue before me is whether the Complainant was dismissed for having made a protected disclosure.

Unfair dismissal

Section 2 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended) provides as follows.

Exclusions

(1) Except in so far as any provision of this Act otherwise provides, this Act shall not apply in relation to any of the following persons:

(a) an employee (other than a person referred to in section 4 of this Act) who is dismissed, who, at the date of his dismissal, had less than one year's continuous service with the employer who dismissed him […],

Section 6 (2) of the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 (as amended)

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from one or more of the following:

(ba) the employee having made a protected disclosure,

Protected disclosure

The definition of “protected disclosure" is set out at section 5(1) of the Act:  

For the purposes of this Act “protected disclosure” means, subject to subsections (6) and (7A) and sections 17 and 18, a disclosure of relevant information … made by a worker in the manner specified in section 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10.

Sections (6) and (7A) respectively address the disclosure of trade secrets and legally privileged information and these are not relevant for this complaint.  Sections 17 and 18 refer to law enforcement and international relations and are also not relevant here.  Sections 6 to 10 set out a tiered disclosure process and provides that information related to wrongdoings may be provided to a prescribed person, an employer, a government minister, a legal advisor or to another person.

A “protected disclosure” therefore, is the disclosure by an employee to his or her employer, or another person, of relevant information. Section 5(2) of the Act provides that,

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.

In Barrett v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2023] IECA 112, the Court of Appeal emphasised that in order for something to amount to a protected disclosure, the worker must have a ”reasonable belief” that it tends to show relevant wrongdoing; this introduces an objective standard, requiring that “a reasonable person would have held the belief if he or she had the same information as the worker”.

Section 5(3) of the Act provides that the following are relevant wrongdoings for the purposes of the 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.

Section 5(5) of the Act provides that “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”.

Section 5(5A) of the Act provides that “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.

Section 5(7) of the Act provides that “the motivation for making a disclosure is irrelevant to whether or not it is a protected disclosure”.

Section 5(8) of the Act provides “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”.  The effect of this provision is to place the burden of proof in relation to a protected disclosure on the Respondent.

Section 6 of the Act sets out the way a disclosure is to be made in order to come within the ambit of the Act:

6. (1) A disclosure is made in the manner specified in this section if the worker makes it—

(a) to the worker’s employer, or

(b) where the worker reasonably believes that the relevant wrongdoing which the disclosure tends to show relates solely or mainly—

(i) to the conduct of a person other than the worker’s employer, or

(ii) to something for which a person other than the worker’s employer has legal responsibility,

to that other person.

(2) A worker who, in accordance with a procedure the use of which by the worker is authorised by the worker’s employer, makes a disclosure to a person other than the employer is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as making the disclosure to the employer.

In investigating this complaint, I must first establish whether the Complainant made one or more disclosures which attract the protections of Act. If I establish that he did, I must then investigate whether his dismissalresulted wholly or mainly from him making the disclosure(s).

The Complainant made lengthy submissions which conveyed his dissatisfaction with the fact that the role he assumed differed significantly from his initial expectations. During the adjudication hearing, the Complainant was informed that it is not the role of an Adjudication Officer to extrapolate potential alleged protected disclosures from his submission. The Complainant was asked to provide more specific details regarding the timing and the nature of the alleged protected disclosure(s). In response, the Complainant referred the Adjudication Officer to his email dated 27 May 2024, addressed to Mr Duffy. The Complainant asserted that this email constituted a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act.

In his email, the Complainant raised a number of maters, which will be addressed below.

Alleged protected disclosure One

The Complainant submitted that he raised the necessity of the fencing around the septic tank. This was raised in his capacity of the Facility Manager. The Complainant’s email of 27 May 2024 confirms that he received an email from Mr Duffy “outlining what you wanted me to do (micromanaging) and not to proceed with any (Health and Safety) projects bar the fencing surrounding the septic tank”. Mr Duffy at the hearing confirmed that the works around the septic tank progressed and were completed. The Complainant, in his evidence also confirmed that the fence was installed on 20 May 2024. Given the confirmation of compliance and cooperation with the Complainant’s assessment in the context of safety of the septic tank surroundings, I find that the alleged protected disclosure one is not a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act.

Alleged protected disclosure Two

The Complainant alleged that the change to the security staffing arrangement was made without prior consultation with him. He contended that this reduction in staffing compromised entrance monitoring during security guards’ breaks, thereby posing a risk of children accessing the road. In response, the Respondent stated that the arrangements had been reviewed by IPAS, with no issues identified.

The Complainant appeared to imply that the security guard’s duties included supervising children within the facility. However, no supporting evidence was provided to substantiate this claim. The decision to alter the staffing arrangement was an operational one made by the Respondent, which the Complainant disagreed with.

Although the Complainant’s concern for the safety of children is commendable, there was no evidence presented to establish a link between the level of security staffing and the supervision of children. While I acknowledge that the Complainant felt inadequately consulted, I do not accept that he could reasonably have believed that the Respondent’s management had committed a “relevant wrongdoing” as defined under the Act.

Accordingly, I find that the alleged protected disclosure does not meet the criteria of a protected disclosure under the Act.

Alleged protected disclosure Three and Five

The Complainant alleged that he raised a protected disclosure when he informed the Respondent that a driver engaged by the Respondent was not an employee of the Respondent, was not Garda vetted, and was not insured (or licenced) to carry passengers in exchange for money. The Complainant asserted that this was in breach of a number of regulations.

At the adjudication hearing, Mr Duffy did not dispute that the matter as raised with him and that this was the case at the material time, albeit it was rectified since.

Having considered the matter, I find that the alleged protected disclosures three and five are protected disclosures within the meaning of the Act.

Alleged protected disclosure Four

The Complainant seems to allege that as a result of his decision to drive to collect residents from hospital, he was required to use his personal vehicle. He noted that using the Respondent’s minibus would have breached EU regulations on driver rest periods. He highlighted that no reimbursement was offered for fuel expenses incurred during the incident or on two previous occasions when he had to travel to prepare the place for arrivals.

The purpose of the Protected Disclosures Act is not to substitute for other legislative frameworks. The Oireachtas has established appropriate mechanisms through which any alleged breaches of working time regulations can be addressed. The Complainant opted not to pursue those avenues.

Having considered the matter, I find that the alleged protected disclosure four is not a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act.

Alleged protected disclosure Six

The Complainant asserted that the Respondent’s failure to provide him with a prepaid payment card was a protected disclosure.

The matter of the provision of payment cards to staff is an operational and governance decision for the Respondent. Having considered the matter, I find that the alleged protected disclosure six is not a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act.

Alleged protected disclosure Seven

The Complainant asserted that, in a radio interview, it was publicly stated that there would be aManager and Assistant Manager in place which was not the case. The Complainant asserted that in the absence of an Assistant Manager resulted in his heavy workload, which in turn results in the requirement to work long hours with no breaks.

It is difficult to discern what the Complainant asserts is the alleged wrongdoing in this case. There was nothing put before me to suggest that the Respondent was in breach of any legislative requirement in the context of the provision of service to IPAS. Any concerns the Complainant had with regard to his working hours could have been raised through the appropriate mechanism. I find that the alleged protected disclosure seven is not a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act.

Alleged protected disclosure Eight

In his email of 27 May 2024, the Complainant raised the matter of fitting four beds a room in the context of alleged attempt to micromanage him and overriding his decision despite his experience.

At the hearing, the Complainant appeared to suggest that furnishing the room with four beds would have breached the terms of the IPAS contract. It was not disputed by either party that the Respondent explored the possibility of fitting four beds in a room; however, this arrangement proved unworkable, and the additional beds were removed prior to the residents’ arrival.

I find that the alleged protected disclosure eight is not a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act.

Alleged protected disclosure Nine

The Complainant alleged that he raised a protected disclosure when, as part of his role as the Facility Manager, he informed the Respondent that gates were necessary. There was no dispute that this was the case; the Respondent commenced a procurement process, and the gates were ordered in line with the Complainant’s assessment. While some time was required, there was no dispute that gates were installed around time of the Complainant’s dismissal.

I find that the alleged protected disclosure is not a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act.

Alleged protected disclosure Ten

The Complainant alleged that he raised the matter of the cleaners with Ms Duggan on 16 May 2024. He raised his concerns that the cleaners were not Garda vetted. At the hearing, Mr Duffy stated that the cleaners were Garda vetted, albeit no supporting documentary evidence was provided.

I have reviewed the evidence provided by the Complainant. I note that in his email of 28 May 2024, to Mr Duffy and Ms Duggan (subject: Garda Vetting), the Complainant stated “As you are dealing with cleaners you will have to assist them with filling out the forms…”

He then goes on to say “I assume you are going with a different company for the ensuite deep clean? If so, they will need to be vetted also”.

The Complainant attached to the email a spreadsheet that he had prepared, where he compiled data relevant to each person that required Garda vetting. I note that the Complainant designed separate heading for: Vetting form sent out Y/N; Vetting form received back form received back Y/N; Sent to GVU Y/N; Clearance received from GVU Y/N; Relevant documentation received from GVU Y/N.

The Complainant listed all personnel including himself, Mr Duffy, the driver, security guards and the two cleaners in question. The Complainant marked “Y” in the box “Vetting form sent out Y/N” for all the personnel except the driver but including the cleaners in question. None of the vetting forms were received back and no clearance was received in respect of any of the personnel at that juncture.

While the Complainant listed two “Proposed Cleaner[s] for Ensuite Deep Clean”, his assertion in the context of the protected disclosure he allegedly made was in respect of the two regular cleaners.

The Complainant was the Designated Contact Person for the purposes of Garda vetting. The evidence before me shows that vetting forms were sent for the two cleaners in question, similarly to all other staff (excluding the driver).

Consequently, I am of the view that the Complainant could not have held a reasonable belief that the Respondent had committed “a relevant wrongdoing” in relation to the Garda vetting of the cleaners in question. Accordingly, I find that protected disclosure ten is not a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act.

I have determined that the Complainant made a protected disclosure within the meaning of the 2014 Act. I must now ascertain whether the Complainant’s dismissal arose “wholly or mainly” from making those protected disclosures.

As noted above, section 6(2)(ba) of the Act provide that the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed to be an unfair dismissal if it results wholly or mainly from the employee having made a protected disclosure. Dismissal is not in dispute in this case. It is the Complainant’s case that he was completely unaware of any concerns regarding his performance. It is the Respondent’s case that that the Complainant was overwhelmed in his role and did not provide the service he was expected to, and that he was dismissed because the relationship was not working out.  It is common case that the Complainant did not receive any formal performance reviews or informal or formal disciplinary warnings.

In Clarke v CGI Food Services Limited and CGI Holdings Limited [2020] IEHC 36, the employer claimed that the dismissal of the plaintiff was due to performance issues. The High Court noted: “. . .decision-makers have to be alive as to how relatively easy it is to remove somebody from a position for ostensibly plausible reasons. On the other side of the equation, it is possible for someone who is dismissed for legitimate reasons to claim that removal was due to some improper purpose . . . [t]he upshot really is that the court must look beyond mere face value on either side” (per Humphrey J at [19]). It is for the Complainant to prove that there is a causal connection between him making a protected disclosure and his dismissal. I find that the Complainant has not discharged that burden for the following reasons.

it was asserted on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant appeared overwhelmed and impatient in his role and did not deliver the level of service expected of him. The Respondent asserted that, in line with the Complainant’s contract which permitted either party to terminate the contract with one month’s notice, the Respondent dismissed the Complainant following ongoing operational challenges and concerns about suitability for the role. The Respondent accepted that there was no finding of misconduct, but rather a fundamental misalignment in expectations and working style.

Upon reviewing the evidence and submissions put before me, I recognise that the Complainant’s emphasis on health and safety was commendable. However, it appears that he was unwilling to provide the Respondent with sufficient time to address the concerns raised.

The Complainant seemed to have expected a more prominent decision-making role and found it difficult when decisions were made without his input. This is reflected in his email dated 20 May 2025, where he stated, “All jobs are being put on a priority list as I deem fit” and then in his email of 27 May 2025:

“…you had overridden my decision, I was not going to be micromanaged and that I had a wealth of experience across the board relating to properties including mechanical, electrical, facilities management, health and safety to name but a few of my skills to date. I also stated that you did this without informing me despite being employed as the on site Facility Manager. It was agreed mutually that it would not happen again and that I would be kept in the loop and discuss any decisions that would affect the running of the property…”

“…Monday, the 20th of May I received an email from you outlining what you wanted me to do (micromanaging)…”

I accept the Respondent’s position that it was not always feasible to immediately address all of the issues raised by the Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant’s threats to resign when matters did not proceed as he wished contributed to the strain in the working relationship.

While I accept that the Complainant acted with good intentions, the frequency and nature of the issues he raised made it difficult for the Respondent to manage both the Complainant and the concerns he presented. It appears the employee-employer relationship was not functioning effectively, and it was characterised more by ongoing conflict than cooperation. The level of attention and time required by the Complainant was ultimately unsustainable.

Having carefully considered the matter, I find that the Complainant was not dismissed wholly or mainly for the making of protected disclosures.

I find that the provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (as amended) do not apply to the Complainant as he has less than one year’s continuous service with the employer and was not dismissed wholly or mainly for the making of a protected disclosure.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

The Complainant alleges that he was dismissed for exercising his right under the Protected Disclosures Act.

The Complainant relies on the same set of facts as in his claim bearing reference number CA-00067045-001 pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act, above.

The Complainant relies on the same set of facts as in his claim bearing reference number CA-00067045-001 pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act, above. The Respondent’s submission is outlined above.

The Complainant relies on the same set of facts as in his claim bearing reference number CA-00067045-001 pursuant to the Unfair Dismissals Act, above. As the matter has been dealt with above and disposed of, I find this complaint to be not well founded.

I find this complaint to be not well founded.

The Complainant referred his claim to the Director General of the WRC on 17 December 2024 alleging that he did not receive in writing his terms of employment.

In the Complaint Specific Details or Statement section, the Complainant submitted as follows.

“Please note! While I had received a contract of employment and the required information included, this is the only way I can select Adjudication that was requested from this office. Please see attached letter to support this.

Contract of employment

Reference from the employment contract

16. Observance and compliance with Company Policies

16.1 It is a condition of your employment that you are familiar and comply at all times with such policies as may be adopted by the Company from time to time.

No policies were ever provided

16.2 Copies of these policies will be provided to you during your induction.

There was never a request to attend induction even though there were a number of days I spent at home at the start of my employment. No policies were ever provided.

16.3 Any breach of these policies (or any of them) is a serious matter and will be dealt with through the Company’s Disciplinary Procedure

No policies were ever provided, and NO companies Disciplinary Procedure was provided. No Grievance procedures were discussed or provided during the duration of my employment.

18 Health and Safety

18.1 The company will take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure your health and safety and welfare while at work. All necessary PPE gear will be provided.

18.2 You are required to familiarize yourself and comply with the company’s policy and rules relating to health and safety at work as set out in the safety statement.

18.3 Compliance with this policy is a condition of employment.

18.4 It is your legal duty to take all steps necessary for your health and safety and that of your colleagues.

While I had taken all the necessary steps necessary, I had a problem with the company being compliant with the property and the residents. No policies were provided, and no Safety Statement was provided.

22 Termination without Notice

22.1 Your employment may be terminated without prior notice for any of the following reasons: 22.1.1 For serious misconduct or serious negligence;

22.1.2 Where you offend in a serious or sustained fashion against the Company’s disciplinary /performance/operating standard;

22.1.3 Where you are incompetent/unwilling/unavailable to perform satisfactorily the tasks and duties assigned to you.

22.1.4 If you become bankrupt or enter into an arrangement with your creditors;

22.1.5 If you are convicted of any criminal offence, which in the reasonable opinion of the company may affect your position and/or the reputation of the company.

None of the above applies and no policies/documents provided in line with this.

Appendix 1 Duties and Responsibilities.

Ensure your accommodation on site is maintained and kept clean.

Despite being discussed and included in a pre-employment discussion email, the accommodation was never provided to me but was handed over to security on the day of the handover.

Drive the residents to and from [named location] using the company rented minibus.

Driving to and from [named location] was minimal. The journeys consisted of trips to educational classes, shopping trips to [named location] in County Galway and to INTREO offices for new arrivals. All these additional trips hindered me carrying out my duties as required by IPAS and the company.

To note: There was no probationary period required, no induction and no training”

In response to the preliminary matter of time limits, on 30 December 2024 the Complainant furnished the following reply.

“When the initial complaint was originally lodged, there were 3 parts to it. Protected Disclosure, Unfair dismissal and Terms and conditions of employment. As there was no specific drop down on the complaints form for Terms and conditions of Employment, I selected the nearest to my complaint. However, this only allowed me to select for inspection. In November I received a call, followed by an email from one of your colleagues, who stated that my complaint did not fall under the heading for inspection and recommended that I cancel the case for inspection and resubmit for adjudication which is what I have done. Again, I had to select a drop down that would allow me to select, adjudication. Therefore, the original complaint was lodged within the time frame but was requested to resubmit it. Attached is a copy of the letter from your colleague with those instructions. To note, the original complaints were attempted to be lodged in August 2024, but the site had crashed on a number of occasions. That also included saving a copy of the draft but the system could not find a copy of that draft despite a reference number being provided. For finish, I had to prepare the contents in Word prior, then, cut and paste into the comments box to shorten the time I was working within the complaints form. This appeared to resolve my issues of crashing.”

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant applied for an extension of the time limit.  He said that he acted as soon as he received a letter from the WRC Inspection Services informing him the subject matter does not come within the remit of an Inspector and cannot, therefore, be considered further by the WRC’s Inspection Services.

The Respondent submits as follows.

The Complainant was issued a signed employment contract dated 15 March 2024. The terms of the contract were clear and adhered to by the Respondent. It is accepted that the rapid mobilisation of the IPAS property created administrative delays in onboarding documentation such as policies and safety statements. However, this did not invalidate his contract or change his core duties. He was paid in full, given appropriate resources (vehicle, phone, laptop), and his assigned duties were consistent with his job description. There is no evidence that the Respondent acted contrary to the contract.

The Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, as amended sets out the basic terms of employment which an employer must provide to an employee in written format. 

There was no dispute that the Complainant was furnished with a written statement of his terms and conditions of employment which was signed on behalf of the Respondent, and which was signed by the Complainant on 20 March 2024.

The Complainant’s employment terminated on 3 June 2025. The Complainant referred his complaint to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Act on 17 December 2024.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (as amended) states:

“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.”

Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (as amended) provides that if a complaint is not submitted within six months of the alleged contravention, an extension may be granted by an Adjudication Officer up to a maximum time limit of 12 months where, in the opinion of the Adjudication Officer, the Complainant has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay in accordance with the provisions:

“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.”

By application of the time limit provided for at section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 the cognisable period for the purpose of this claim is confined to the six-month period ending on the date on which the complaint was presented to the WRC. Therefore, the cognisable period covered by the complaint is the six-month period from 17 December 2024 to 18 June 2024. As the Complainant’s employment ceased on 3 June 2024, pursuant to section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, as amended, the initiating complaint referral form must have been submitted to the WRC by 2 December 2024.

At the adjudication hearing, the Complainant applied for an extension of the time limit on the basis that he had initially referred his complaint to the Inspection Services of the WRC. The Complainant submitted that immediately after he was informed that his complaint is not does come within the remit of an Inspector, he referred his claim to Adjudication Services.

I note that the letter from the Inspector, Team Manager is dated 28 November 2024. In the letter the Complainant was informed that the subject matter does not come within the remit of an Inspector and cannot, therefore, be considered further by the WRC’s Inspection Services. The Complainant was further advised that it was open to him to present a complaint to the WRC Adjudication Services.

I note that in the letter, the Inspector, Team Manager emphasised in bold the following sentence,

“Please note as there are specific legal time limits relating to pursuing these matters we suggest that you file your new complaint without delay.”

The Complainant did not refer his claim to the Adjudication Services until 17 December 2024. There was no explanation provided as to the reason for the delay.

It is for the Complainant to establish that there is reasonable cause for the delay in presenting a claim under the Act to the Director General of the WRC. The general principles which apply are that something must be advanced which will both explain and excuse the delay. 

The established test for deciding if an extension of time should be granted for ‘reasonable cause’ is set out in the Labour Court determination in the case of Cementation Skanska (Formerly Kvaerner Cementation) Limited v Carroll DWT0338 and is summarised in Salesforce.com v Alli Leech EDA1615 wherein the Labour Court stated:

‘The established test for deciding if an extension should be granted for reasonable cause shown is that formulated by this Court in Labour Court Determination DWT0338Cementation Skanska (Formerly Kvaerner Cementation) v Carroll. Here the test was set out in the following terms: -

“It is the Court's view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time.”

In that case, and in subsequent cases in which this question arose, the Court adopted an approach analogous to that taken by the Superior Courts in considering whether time should enlarged for ‘good reason’ in judicial review proceedings pursuant to Order 84, Rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986. That approach was held to be correct by the High Court in Minister for Finance v CPSU & Ors [2007] 18 ELR 36.

The test formulated in Cementation Skanska (Formerly Kvaerner Cementation) v Carroll draws heavily on the decision of the High Court in Donal O’Donnell and Catherine O’Donnell v Dun Laoghaire Corporation [1991] ILRM 30. Here Costello J. (as he then was) stated as follows:

“The phrase ‘good reasons’ is one of wide import which it would be futile to attempt to define precisely. However, in considering whether or not there are good reasons for extending the time I think it is clear that the test must be an objective one and the court should not extend the time merely because an aggrieved plaintiff believed that he or she was justified in delaying the institution of proceedings. What the plaintiff has to show (and I think the onus under O. 84 r. 21 is on the plaintiff) is that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford a justifiable excuse for the delay.”

In Cementation Skanska, the Court further held that:

‘The length of the delay should be taken into account. A short delay may require only a slight explanation whereas a long delay may require more cogent reasons.’

I find that the Complainant has not shown reasonable cause to empower me to extend the timeframe for the submission of a complaint under the Act. 

 Accordingly, I find I do not have jurisdiction to decide the claim under the Act.

I declare this complaint to be not well founded.

Unfair dismissal – protected disclosure – terms of employment-