Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Subramania Rajan  Seenivasan

Alpha Precision Limited

Representatives

Self-Represented

Mr. Eamon Gallagher, Rochford Gallagher & Co. Solicitors LLP

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

CA-00071846-001

24/05/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in early 2021. The Complainant was a permanent full-time member of staff. The Complainant’s employment terminated by way of resignation on 19th May 2025.  

On 24th May 2025, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that the Respondent continually induced him to commit several illegal and unethical acts in the course of his employment. He further submitted that when he refused to do so, the Respondent commenced a campaign of harassment against him, cumulating in his resignation from employment and the reporting of the activities in question to the Gardaí. By response, the Respondent strongly denied each of the allegations raised by the Complainant. In this respect, they submitted that he Complainant requested a loan from the company, and when same was refused, commenced a campaign of false allegations against the Respondent, to include the allegations outlined in the present complaint. They further submitted that the complaint as referred, was misconceived, and could not succeed on that basis.

A hearing in relation to this matter was initially convened for 9th December 2025. This hearing, and all subsequent hearings were conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. In light of the volume of correspondence and documentation issued by the parties in advance of the hearing, this date was converted to a case management conference whereby certain directions were given regarding the subsequent hearings. Following this hearing, the Adjudicator corresponded directly with the Complainant (copying the Respondent) outlining the test be adopted in respect to complaints of penalisation under the impleaded Act and the necessary proofs in relation to the same. On foot of this direction, the Complainant issued a further submission collating all previous submissions and documentation, to which the Respondent replied in due course. Thereafter, a hearing in relation to this matter was convened for 16th March 2026. Unfortunately, the sworn evidence of the parties did not finalise on this date and the matter was adjourned for completion, with the matter being duly relisted for 11th May 2026. On this date, an independent translator booked by the Commission did not attend the hearing, and in circumstances whereby the services of a replacement translator could not be secured, the matter was again adjourned. On the request of the parties, the relisting of the subsequent date was expedited, with the same being listed for 3rd June 2026. On that date the matter finalised, with closing submissions being issued by both parties.

On numerous occasions throughout this process, the Complainant requested the attendance of numerous witnesses in support of his allegations. In circumstances whereby the vast majority of these witnesses were engaged by third parties to the present litigation, or were otherwise irrelevant to the establishment of protected disclosure or penalisation on the part of the Complainant, the various applications for witness attendance were denied both by way of oral ruling during the hearing, and direct correspondence issued to the Complainant. In addition to the foregoing, the Complainant sought the production of numerous categories of documentation on the part of the Respondent. Again, the production documents in question were deemed unnecessary and the same was not ordered, with the Complainant again being informed of this outcome by way of correspondence.

At the outset of the initial hearing, the representative for the Respondent requested that the hearing be held in private, and that I exercise my discretion to anonimise the present decision in its published form. This application was grounded on two points; firstly the Respondent submitted that the allegations raised by the Complainant were serious in nature and without foundation. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the allegations themselves could cause significant reputational damage to the Respondent. Secondly, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant had made several complaints to numerous external bodies, not least of all the Gardai, and that the Respondent did not wish to prejudice any forthcoming investigation undertaken by these bodies.

Regarding the first point, it is often the case that complaints before the Commission involve the investigation matters that might cause reputational damage to a Respondent or a witness for a Respondent. This is the nature of litigation and cannot serve to disapply the principle of the public administration of justice. Regarding the second ground of the application, the Respondent confirmed that while complaints had been made to external bodies, no actual proceedings or charges were in existence on the date of any of the hearings. In these circumstances, and again in consideration of the strong assumption that justice must be administered in public, the application to hold the hearings in private and to anonymise the published decision were denied.

Both parties issued substantial submissions in advance of the hearing. Following the second hearing date, the Complainant issued further extensive submissions, described by him as rejoinders. On the resumed date of hearing, the Complainant was invited to provide sworn evidence in relation to the documentation contained in these additional submissions. The Complainant gave evidence in support of his complaint, while both Directors of the Respondent gave evidence in defence. All evidence was given under oath or affirmation and was opened to extensive cross examination by the opposing side.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings.

In evidence, the Complainant stated that he became aware of the vacant position within the Respondent by means of a post published on a social media platform. Following various discussions, he entered into a contract of employment on 2nd October 2020, with his employment subsequently commencing on 1st January 2021. Pursuant to the employment agreement, the Complainant's role was defined as Senior Injection Mould Tool Designer (Mechanical Engineer).

The Complainant submitted that, under the terms of this employment contract, he was legally obligated to perform duties solely within the scope of the role for which he was appointed. Nonethelessr, he stated in evidence that the Respondent compelled him to assume additional duties outside his expertise and the parameters of his role. Specifically, the Complainant stated that he was routinely required to manage supply chain operations, oversee shipments, conduct follow-ups, ensure the coordination of timely deliveries, handle in-house vendor management for external parties, conduct quality inspections and reporting, ensure compliance with quality standards, and act as a special project lead regarding legacy tool retrofitting.

The Complainant stated that he repeatedly requested that the Respondent refrain from allocating tasks beyond his professional expertise. Despite his requests in this regard he was ignored by management. He submitted that, as a foreign national employed by the Respondent, he lived in constant fear that his employment would be terminated, which would result in the revocation of his visa and his forced departure from the state. In evidence, he further stated that he was informed that his passport would be confiscated and he would be prevented from leaving the country should he fail to carry out the assigned tasks. He described this as a pattern of continuous harassment by the Respondent, and in particular its management, which left him with no alternative but to reluctantly comply with the Respondent's demands.

In this regard, the Complainant raised several allegations of serious misconduct against the Respondent. In his evidence, the Complainant stated that the Respondent instructed him to alter the values on various purchase orders and invoices to evade import tax. The Complainant referred to specific instances of this practice, clarifying in evidence that these represented merely a sample of numerous similar occurrences.

The Complainant stated that around 2024, he refused to continue participating in this process. He stated that following his refusal, the Respondent deliberately made his working conditions intolerable and continued to harass him throughout his employment. Specifically, he stated that he was informed that he would never receive a salary increase, that his remuneration would be reduced, and that he should to resign from the company.

The Complainant stated that these threats escalated over time to encompass verbal abuse and threats of physical harm directed at him and his immediate family. In an effort to protect himself, he subsequently lodged a formal complaint with the Gardaí, sending this correspondence via email on 28th March 2025.

Additionally, the Complainant stated that between May and June 2022, he was subjected to significant pressure to falsify documents. Upon his refusal to do so, he left the state on 15th June 2022. He stated that between July and November 2022, he remained in contact with the Respondent, who required him to work from India while conveying instructions via telephone.

The Complainant stated that between September and October 2022, he was engaged in discussions with the Respondent regarding the visa approval process and the arrival of another individual from his home country. He duly resumed his duties in person for the Respondent in November 2022.

The Complainant stated that the Respondent attempted to forge technical manuals to falsely indicate that goods manufactured in India originated from China. Due to his persistent refusal to participate in the creation of these falsified documents, he alleged that his salary was unilaterally reduced without prior notice in February 2023, and it remained at this reduced level until March 2025. As a direct result of this unilateral reduction in pay, the Complainant was forced to obtain a loan from the Respondent, which was subsequently recovered via weekly deductions from his salary.

On 24th October 2023, the Respondent requested that the Complainant pay a significant sum of money to the company to facilitate his internal visa processing. He was also asked to design three tools as payment in lieu of these visa fees. The Complainant stated that the Respondent has failed to reimburse the balance of these visa payments to date.

Finally, the Complainant stated that he compiled the curriculum vitae of six individuals from his home country and was asked to facilitate their visa applications, occasionally discharging the associated application fees directly from his personal funds.

In summary, the Complainant submitted that he suffered ongoing harassment and adverse treatment in the course of his employment. While he outlined elements of adverse treatment and alleged illegal activity that occurred almost from the commencement of his employment, he submitted that this behaviour became more pronounced following his refusal to engage in illegal and unethical activities on the part of the Respondent. He stated that the behaviour of various members of management of the Respondent was such that he was obliged to resign his employment and report the activities in question to the Gardai.

In answer to a question posed in cross examination, the Complainant accepted that he did not raise these issues in accordance with the Respondent’s internal processes. In this respect, he submitted that the did not do so out of fear of reprisal from the Respondent’s management. He also stated that the Complainant themselves related to the conduct of senior management of the Respondent, which rendered the internal procedures obsolete.  

In defending the allegations raised by the Complainant, the Respondent denied same on a factual basis. In addition to the foregoing, they submitted that the present complaint, as referred, was not actionable under the impleaded legislation and was fundamentally misconceived.

In this regard, the Respondent accepted that the Complainant commenced employment in early 2021. The Respondent submitted that the Complainant worked in the design office, assisting with tool designing, ordering materials, supporting outsourcing, and preparing tool documentation.

In evidence, the Managing Director of the Respondent stated that the Complainant was not, at any stage, required to perform any duties outside the scope of the tasks required of the design team. The Managing Director denied in strong terms that the Complainant was, or had ever been, threatened by management or anyone else within the Respondent company. He also denied that the Complainant ever had his passport confiscated, or with threatened with the same, at any point of his engagement with the Respondent.

In response to specific allegations raised by the Complainant, the Managing Director of the Respondent denied, again in the strongest possible terms, that the Complainant was ever compelled or forced to alter any invoices. In this regard, he submitted that an issue related to this allegation came to light after the Complainant resigned his position in March 2025. Following the termination of the Complainant's employment, the Managing Director assumed his duties and discovered commercial invoices were issued to a particular supplier that reflected 50% of the actual value of the goods. This discovery triggered a full internal audit of supply shipments from outside the EU. This, in turn, revealed that the first instance occurred on 20th February 2024, when the Complainant reduced the value of goods to 25% of the original amount. The Managing Director stated that this was completed without the knowledge of management. Following this internal review, it was determined that this occurred with one supplier only and through one former employee, being the Complainant. Following the review, a payment was made in respect of the unpaid minimal excise fee by the Respondent regarding part of this issue.

Regarding the resignation of the Complainant, the Managing Director stated that on Sunday 17th March 2025, the Complainant sent him a text message regarding personal financial problems. Thereafter, on Monday morning, the Managing Director called the Complainant back to discuss the issue. The Complainant stated that he needed a loan payment to settle various personal debts that had accumulated. He stated that he required an immediate loan of €14,000, and asked that the funds be transferred within the coming hours. The Managing Director stated that he could not authorize such a transaction himself and that it required the consent of both directors of the company. He also stated that he did not know how to transfer money from the company account, as that was the office secretary's role.

The following day, Tuesday 18th March 2025, the Complainant approached the Managing Director in a panicked state regarding the loan. The Managing Director stated that he was continually pursued by the Complainant during the day regarding the issue until he finally managed to speak with the other director that afternoon. In the course of this conversation, both directors discussed the loan situation and agreed that they were not in a position to advance another loan. They noted that they already had an outstanding loan with the Complainant and that he was five months behind in rent on a property owned by the Respondent in which he was a tenant.

That evening, the other director spoke with the Complainant and informed him that the company would not advance another loan, reminding him of the existing outstanding balance. Thereafter, the Complainant left and went home for the evening.

On Wednesday 19th March 2025, the Complainant reported to work as usual. During a conversation with the Managing Director, the Complainant requested the rest of the day off to attend to various personal issues, stating that he might need to leave the office to resolve these matters in person. The Managing Director further stated that the Complainant contacted him again later by mobile phone, once more requesting a loan of €14,000 prior to the close of business.

In evidence, the Managing Director stated that he was uncomfortable issuing loans to employees, and that the only instance in which the Respondent had done so was for the Complainant previously. He stated that while the Complainant was emotional and distressed throughout the call, towards the end of the same, Complainant lost his temper and became quite angry. As the conversation descended into an argument, the Managing Director informed the Complainant that he would speak with him in person to discuss the matter directly. Shortly thereafter, the Managing Director received a letter of resignation from the Complainant.

Following receipt of the resignation, the Managing Director received a series of text messages in which the Complainant raised a series of allegations regarding various alleged acts of wrongdoing by the company. The Managing Director stated that this was the first time any such allegations had been raised, and that prior to the refusal of the loan towards the end of the Complainant's employment, the parties had enjoyed a mutually beneficial working relationship. He stated that the tone of these messages was angry and combative from the Complainant, but conciliatory from the Respondent.

Thereafter, the Complainant engaged in further escalation of the allegations against the Respondent, including referrals to the Gardaí and various other third parties, as well as the present complaint to the Commission.

In summary, the Managing Director stated that the allegations raised by the Complainant were entirely false, and that the parties had enjoyed a beneficial working relationship until the refusal of a personal loan in May 2025. At that point, the Complainant initiated a campaign of false allegations against the Respondent, which encompassed the present complaint.

In addition to the foregoing, the Respondent's representative submitted that while the allegations raised by the Complainant were denied on a factual basis, the complaint raised under the Act was fundamentally misconceived. In this regard, the Respondent's representative stated that no protected disclosure was raised by the Complainant until he referred an allegation to the Gardaí. He stated that as this occurred following the Complainant's resignation, and as a matter of simple logic, the allegations of penalisation raised by the Complainant could not have arisen as a consequence of an alleged protected disclosure.

Having had regard to the foregoing, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant's application under the Act should be deemed to be not well-founded.

Regarding the present complaint, the Complainant has raised a series of serious allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the Respondent. In this regard, the Complainant alleged that the Respondent instructed him to forge documents, that they abused the international visa process, that they committed various acts of tax evasion. He submitted that following his refusal to engage in such acts, the Respondent engaged in a campaign of harassment against him. He submitted that this campaign of harassment left him with no choice but to resign his employment and report the activities of the Respondent to the Gardai.

In response, the Respondent vehemently denied each the allegations raised by the Complainant. The Respondent, and in particular the managing director of the same, submitted that the parties enjoyed a mutually beneficial working relationship and a close personal relationship until the Complainant was refused a personal loan from the company. The Respondent submitted that, at this juncture, the Complainant resigned his employment and commenced a campaign of raising false allegations against the Respondent. This campaign included several complaints to external bodies and encapsulated the present complaint to the Commission.

In this regard, Section 5(1) of the Protected Disclosures Act defines a “protected disclosure” as the “disclosure of relevant information made by a worker in the manner specified”.

Thereafter, Section 5(2) defines “relevant information” as that which, “in the reasonable belief of the worker…tends to show one or more relevant wrongdoing…”.

Section 5(2)(b) enumerates the following as an example of a “relevant wrongdoing”,

“…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.”

Thereafter, Section 6(1) provides that,

“A disclosure is made in the manner specified in this section if the worker makes it—

(a)    to the worker’s employer”

At the initial hearing of this matter, the relevant legal test under the legislation was explained to the parties. The Adjudicator informed the Complainant that the purpose of the hearing was not to determine whether the company had committed various acts of wrongdoing, but rather to establish whether he was penalised for making a protected disclosure in accordance with the Act. The Complainant was expressly informed that he was required to identify a communication capable of being deemed a protected disclosure in order to succeed in his application. In this regard, following the initial hearing of the matter, the Adjudicator took the unusual step of issuing correspondence to the Complainant setting out the requirement for the establishment of the communication that may be deemed to be a protected disclosure in accordance with Section 5, and the communication of the same in accordance with Section 6, in order to succeed in his complaint.

Thereafter a further submission was issued received by the Complainant, again alleging various acts of serious wrongdoing on the part of the Respondent. This submission stated that the Complainant could no longer endure the wrongful treatment at the hands of the Respondent and in these circumstances, he resigned his employment had consequently submitted a complaint to the Gardaí. While this report to the Gardaí may well have constituted a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act, it was common case that it was made after his resignation from employment.

Having regard to the foregoing, I agree with the submission of the Respondent that, in terms of simple logic, the allegations of adverse treatment set out by the Complainant in evidence and submissions could not have arisen as a consequence of a protected disclosure that had not yet been communicated.

In this regard, the essence of the Complainant's submissions and his evidence at hearing, and it should be noted that the Respondent vehemently denied each of these allegations, was that he was induced to commit various allegedly illegal acts at the behest of the company. Upon his refusal to engage in these practices, the Complainant submitted that the Respondent engaged in a campaign of adverse behaviour, ultimately resulting in his enforced resignation.

In closing his case, the Complainant stated that he did not feel that he could report these concerns, either externally or internally, as he was concerned that his ongoing residence in the state was tied to his employment with the Respondent, that he resided in a property owned by one of the directors of the Respondent and that he felt that he had no appropriate avenue to ventilate his concerns.

Taking these allegations at their height, it is apparent that no communication that may be deemed to be a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act has been identified prior to the adverse treatment alleged. Rather, the position of the Complainant appeared to be that he was requested to engage in illegal activity, refused to do so, and suffered adverse consequences as a result.

Having regard to the foregoing, it was found that the Complainant did not make a protected disclosure in the course of his employment, and consequently, his application under the Act is deemed to be not well-founded.

I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

Protected Disclosures, Communication, Witnesses, Documentation