ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00048911
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Former Member of AGS | AGS |
Representatives | Ms Mary Fay instructed by Mr Conall Shaw of Denis I Finn Solicitors | Ms Orla Murphy BL Instructed by Aideen O’Brien of the Chief State Solicitor's Office CSSO |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 | CA-00060161-001 | 21/11/2023 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 | CA-00060161-003 | 21/11/2023 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 20/10/2025
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
The Complainant was a member of An Garda Síochána (“AGS”) and sat on the governing body of a member’s organisation associated with AGS (which I will refer to as the “Organisation” for the purposes of this decision). This case was linked with a series of complaints the Complainant had brought against other members of the Organisation, these were ADJ- 00048733, 48734, 48735, 48739, 48739, 48740, 48741, 48742 and were initially heard together with this matter. Preliminary issues arose in those cases which needed to be considered first before this case could proceed.
Both parties sought to have those complaints anonymised but the facts there was limited scope for me to grant that request and in the circumstances I sought to anonymise the decision as best I could.
I have followed the same approach with this decision.
Background:
The Complainant was a member of An Garda Síochána (“AGS”) and sat on the governing body of an organisation associated with AGS (which I will refer to as the “Organisation” for the purposes of this decision). He had been the Treasurer of the Organisation from 2019 to towards the Organisation’s conference in 2021.
On the 7th November 2021 the Complainant sent an email to a senior civilian working with AGS, Ms A.. This related to an allegation that there had been inappropriate use of the Organisation’s funds and his understanding that Ms A had been told there was no issue. In this email he raised that an acting up allowance, paid to a senior figure seconded to the Organisation, had been treated as an ex-gratia payment at that person’s direction, rather than payroll and that there was a tax liability arising. The Complainant elaborated that this resulted in the Organisation “grossing up” the figure and paying the tax on top of it rather than deducting overpayment. On the 1st of December 2021 he reiterated these concerns to a Senior Officer assigned to conduct a HR investigation. He alleges he was penalised for having done so. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant’s counsel made oral and written submissions on his behalf. The Complainant provided evidence under affirmation, he alleges he was penalised for having made protected disclosures and ultimately had to retire early. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent’s counsel made oral and written submissions on their behalf. They utterly reject the allegation that the Complainant was penalised and a Senior Officer provided evidence under affirmation as to the investigation he conducted related to the Complainant’s complaints of bullying. |
Findings and Conclusions:
CA-00060161-001 – Protected Disclosures Act Ms Orla Murphy for the Respondent raises a preliminary issue as to whether the Complainant’s disclosures in November 2021 and December 2021 constitute Protected Disclosures as defined by Section 5 of the Act. Section 5(1) and (2) state that: “protected disclosure” means, …a disclosure of relevant information (whether before or after the date of the passing of this Act) made by a worker …and that relevant information is information which in the reasonable belief of the worker, it tends to show one or more relevant wrongdoings, and it came to the attention of the worker in a work-related context Subsection 5 provides an exclusion 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. At the time of the disclosure the Worker had just finished up his term as Treasurer of the Organisation. He discovered potential over payments to a Senior Official of the Organisation and associated tax issues, while he occupied that role. He was also concerned about his access to the accounts and information generally. These matters were the responsibility of the Organisation which is ultimately governed by its members. AGS does not have direct control over their affairs and while AGS does provide the Organisation with some funding, there was no act or omission of AGS raised by the Complainant in the two communications which he cites as Protected Disclosures. In the circumstances I am of the view that the Complainant has not raised a Protected Disclosure as defined by the Act, in the context of his employment relationship with the Respondent. CA-00060161-003 – Unfair Dismissals Act The Complainant has alleged he was constructively dismissed. Ms Murphy points to Section 2(1)(e) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 which provides that the Act shall not apply to a member of An Garda Síochána. This was not disputed by the Complainant. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the unfair dismissal claim consisting of a grant of redress in accordance with section 7 of the 1977 Act.
CA-00060161-001 I find that the complaint is not well founded. CA-00060161-003 I find that the complaint is not well founded. |
Dated: 25-02-26
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David James Murphy
Key Words:
|