Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Martins  Pancis

Kilkenny Local Authority Leisure Complex Ltd t/a The Watershed

Representatives

Self-represented

Peninsula

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-00071642-001

16/05/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 3rd December 2024.  His employment was terminated on 16th May 2025.  The Complainant contends he was dismissed for exercising his rights under the Protected Disclosure Act, 2014.  The Respondent submits that the Complainant did not make a protected disclosure at any time and that he was dismissed within the probationary period.

Oral Testimony of the Complainant (under affirmation)

The Complainant was employed as a duty manager on a permanent contract subject to a 6-month probation period.  He contends that his dismissal was abrupt, disproportionate, unfair and potentially motivated by a desire to avoid offering him a permanent contract. 

The Complainant lives in the country with no public transport.  His car broke down the week of his dismissal.  He expended considerable effort in trying to get it repaired without delay, and he arranged shift cover to minimise any disruption to the Respondent.  He kept his manager informed at all times.  He returned to work within 3 days, but his employment was terminated without adherence to fair procedure.  There were no prior issues in relation to his performance or attendance.  He was nearing the end of his probationary period, and he believes he was dismissed to avoid being offered a permanent contract.

The Complainant confirmed to the hearing that at no time did he make a protected disclosure to the Respondent prior to his dismissal. 

Mr Hegarty, on behalf of the Respondent, submitted that the Complainant had given no evidence at the hearing in relation to the making of a protected disclosure.  His complaint form to the WRC similarly did not disclose any information in relation to his making of a protected disclosure.  A written submission was not provided to the WRC for that reason.  Mr Hegarty declined to call Ms Dowling to give evidence. 

Relevant Law

Section 6(2) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977-2015 provides:

“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 . . . .”

Section 1 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 -2015 provides that a ‘protected disclosure’ has the meaning given by the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014. 

An employee does not require one years of service to fall within the scope of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 -2015 if dismissed wholly or mainly for the making of a  protected  disclosure.

A protected disclosure is a disclosure of ‘relevant information’ by a worker in the manner specified under the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.  Section 5(2) of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 provides that information is ‘relevant information” for the purposes of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 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.  Section 5(3) of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 lists what constitutes ‘relevant wrongdoings’.  Section 6(1)(a) of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 provides that a disclosure is made if the worker makes it to the worker’s employer or other responsible person.

Findings

This is a complaint of unfair dismissal under s. 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015.  Dismissal is not in dispute in this case.  To fall within the scope of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 – 2015 an employee generally requires one year of continuous service.  The Complainant does not have one year of continuous service, however, he does not need to satisfy this service requirement if his dismissal was wholly or mainly for the making of a protected disclosure.

I must first ascertain whether the Complainant made a protected disclosure as defined under the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.  It is only if the existence of a protected disclosure is established must I then go on to consider whether the dismissal was wholly or mainly due to having made a protected disclosure.

The Complainant confirmed to the hearing that he did not make a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.  Therefore, as the Complainant had less than one year of service, I find I have no jurisdiction to hear the substantive matter of the case and award redress under s. 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977-2015.

I decide I have no jurisdiction to hear the substantive matter of the complaint and to award redress under s. 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977-2015.

Less than one years’ service.  Alleged protected disclosure.