ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00047295

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  14/03/2024, 24/09/2024, 25/09/2024, 20/05/2025 and 20/05/2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The complaint was considered at hearings on 14 March 2024, 24 September 2024, 25 September 2024, 20 May 2025 and 20 May 2026.  At the hearing on 20 May 2025, the solicitor for the Respondent advised that the Board had resigned and that the former Chair Mr MB was now in place as Chairperson.  The solicitor, Mr Goff stated that the Respondent now concedes all the allegations made by the Complainant and the Board offers an unequivocal apology to the Complainant.  His instructions were that the Complainant is de facto the Chief Executive Officer of the Organisation, that the two reports at the centre of the Complainant’s complaints will be expunged from the record and that no evidence was being offered in regard to the Respondent’s position.  The only matter therefore to be addressed was that of remedy.  The hearing on 20 May 2026 heard evidence from the Complainant as to the detrimental effects she suffered on foot of the protected disclosures she made.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

In or around 2006 the Claimant, a registered nurse, was appointed Director of Nursing by the then Chair of the Board of the Respondent (the Board), Mr FH. Part of her specific remit at that time was lead the development of the Respondent and build out an executive management team (“EMT”).

As part of the development and professionalisation of the Respondent the Claimant was requested to undertake an MBA with Smurfit Business School. The Claimant obtained the MBA qualification in or around 2011 with first class honours.

Having developed the Respondent organisation as above and achieved the appropriate qualification the Claimant was appointed Director of Services in 2013 by then chair Mr MB. Since that time the Claimant has operated as the head of the executive management team and performed the functions of CEO of the Respondent. The Claimant’s job description provides that the role reports directly to the Board.

The Claimant’s role also has overall responsibility for financial management, human resources, service user’s needs, health & safety, training and education. Several of these functions are delegated to members of the executive team reporting directly into the Claimant. The role of the DOS as chief executive and executive head of the organisation was confirmed by the Board on or about 30th January 2023 in a document produced for the HSE and setting out the scheme of delegation.

At all material times, until in or around July 2023, the Claimant has acted and been acknowledged as CEO or de facto CEO of the Respondent, including by the EMT, the Board, former chair of the board MB, the current chair of the Board EC (the chair), the HSE, HIQA, TUSLA, the Federation of Voluntary Boards (of which she is vice chair) amongst others.

The penalisation of the Claimant occurred against a background where the Chair in particular had increasingly sought to interfere in the executive function of the EMT. This included directions by the Chair to the Claimant that she provide an undertaking to assist him at the Farrelly Commission of Investigation. This undertaking was sought after the Claimant stated that it would not be appropriate where she was a witness to the Commission.

In addition, and central to the instant claim, the Claimant was repeatedly directed to discharge invoices despite her express concerns that the services were procured in breach of procurement procedures and laws. This conduct was fundamental to the Claimant making her protected disclosures.

The Claimant has been penalised, in particular by the Chair, in particular through the weaponizing of a fundamentally flawed organisational review (herein after called “the first Report”) and arising report (herein after called “the second Report”). The first report was procured by the Board and in the case of the Claimant has been weaponised against her to undermine her role and functions by effectively demoting her.

The first and second Reports were procured on foot of ultra vires findings and recommendations made in the course of the first Report into an allegation of bullying and harassment. That allegation was made by the former HR manager against the Chair and its terms of reference were limited to that issue.

Despite the limited terms of reference the first Report made adverse findings against the EMT, including the Claimant who had not been asked to participate in the investigation. Most importantly the first Report further breached its terms of reference by offering, (ultra vires and unprompted) recommendations relating to management of the Respondent, including expressions of serious concerns regarding the leadership of the executive management team.

The Claimant was shocked and appalled that a process with which she was not involved in any way made findings of what amount to her involvement in a form of conspiracy against her employer. In addition, there was an inference that the Claimant, who has been directly reporting to the Board and leading the EMT since taking up her position (as well as holding a qualification in governance, did not understand the different functions within the Respondent.

Despite the flawed nature of the first Report, it was shared in its entirety by the chair with persons from HIQA and the HSE. Relying on the flawed nature of its recommendations in or around June 2022 the chair and or the Board engaged the services of a Consulting firm to implement and facilitate its ultra vires recommendations. At this time the Respondent asserted that the purpose of the Consulting firm involvement was to provide a “facilitation process”.

The Claimant’s trade union, the Psychiatric Nurses’ Association (“PNA”), engaged in repeated correspondence with the Respondent noting the flawed nature of the first Report and its detrimental effect on the Claimant.

Arising from the above treatment in or around 18th and 23rd April 2022 the Claimant made a detailed complaint to the Board of bullying and harassment against the chair. The Claimant specifically requested that the complaint be treated as a protected disclosure under the PDA This complaint raised a number of issues relating to the treatment of the Claimant by the chair including:

The assurances relating to assistance to the chair at the Farrelly Commission.

The treatment of the Claimant in the first Report and its disclosure to the HSE.

The instruction to engage with the Consulting firm on foot of the findings of the first Report.

A letter dated 9th June 2022 from the chair to Mr B of HIQA sharing the disputed first Report and referring to the EMT in a derogatory manner.

The fact that the Claimant was subsequently requested to attend a meeting with Mr B in the absence of any knowledge of the letter or its content.

The Review.

Initially (as notified to Mr B of HIQA by the Chair) the Board refused any investigation on the basis that it had voted to have no more investigations. This was later modified, however, despite assurances that the complaint would be investigated independently, the secretary of the Board (Mr WP) later stated that the matter would be dealt with by a member of the Board for costs reasons. The PNA corresponded with the Respondent to note that such a course could not be independent. Notwithstanding this the Respondent has never investigated the Claimant’s complaints.

Without explanation the proposed facilitation process did not ultimately proceed. However, in or around September 2022 the Chair and or Board procured the services of a Consulting firm to carry out an organisational review. In the circumstances, an investigation into bullying and harassment by one EMT member against the chairman morphed into a root and branch review of the organisation without any or any adequate explanation.

The PNA wrote to the HSE expressing concerns that the Review could not be considered independent where it was contracted by the Board.

It is submitted that the Report was fundamentally flawed for a number of reasons.

The Report was commissioned by the Chair and or the Board giving rise to an actual or perceived bias.  Despite attempts to portray the report as having been requested by the HSE this was not the case.  Further, the EMT did decline to take part for good reasons. 

Apart from the lack of EMT participation the second Report was also fundamentally flawed due to the refusal of board members FH and MB (both former chairs) to participate. This refusal was in part due to the refusal of the Chair (and the Consultant) to answer fundamental questions relating to the review including the reason for same. Following publication of the Report, Mr H and Mr B prepared a written response for submission to the Board.

In addition, both Mr H and Mr B expressed the view that the absence in the Report of any reference to its rational could reasonably be assumed to arise because it was in reality a mechanism by which to penalise members of the EMT who they noted had “drawn the displeasure of the Chairman and certain members of the Board”. Of relevance in this regard they noted that the recommendations included the demotion of the Claimant, the redundancy of the HR manager (and DPO) and Corporate Governance Officer (and joint DPO), all of whom had come into conflict with the Chair.

Making of protected disclosures

Details were submitted in relation to invoices given in November 2022 by the Chair to the Claimant for €33,066 payable to the Consulting firm. 

Following emails back and forth between the Claimant, the Respondent’s Finance Officer and the Chair, the Claimant sought the necessary procurement of paperwork (the OGP framework procedure).

By way of e-mail dated 19th December 2022 the chair e-mailed the Claimant noting that the Board had discussed the procurement and he again instructed that the invoice be paid. The following day the chair e-mailed the Claimant and FO stating as follows: “Please note that the HSE appointed (the Consulting Firm), For this reason, no such process as the one you describe was required. The HSE has instructed us to discharge the invoice and as you know we are now late to do so. I am instructing you to discharge the invoice without further delay – should you require any follow up documentation from the HSE, I would suggest contacting Ms E. However, that should not delay payment. Can you please come back to me no later than tomorrow afternoon to confirm that the payment has been made”.

By way of e-mail dated 21st December 2022 the Claimant raised the query with Ms E of the HSE, who replied as follows:

“(The Consulting firm) were commissioned by the Board of WIDA. On that basis I have advised the Chairperson that the payment of the invoice is a matter for WIDA” 

An invoice with the same date and numbered #01 – 2023) relating to the Consulting firm in the amount of €24,995 was sent by the Chair to the Finance Officer with an instruction to pay.

By way of e-mail dated 20th February 2023 the Claimant made a protected disclosure to the HSE via its dedicated e-mail address “protected.disclosures@hse.ie”. This disclosure was accepted by the office of the office of the authorised person for protected disclosures within the HSE (“the HSE authorised person”) as PD no. 439. This disclosure noted as follows:

“I am the Director of services in WIDA. I have in recent months been put under enormous pressure to pay invoices for services procured by the Chairman of WIDA without utilising [our own policies or indeed the OGP framework or the HSE’s NFR’s]. I have to attend a board meeting tomorrow 21/2/23 where I have been instructed to pay for these improperly procured services. I have now been placed in an invidious position by the Chairman of the Board who has ordered to confirm to him tomorrow that I have instructed our finance officer to discharge these improperly procured services. …

The board have now employed a HR consultant, … ,

to implement a totally discredited and improperly procured report. …

I now fear that I will be penalised for refusing to pay invoices not in accordance with our finance policies.”

On 20th February 2023, Ms KW, notified the chair and the Board that a First Notification Letter (FNL), outlining the concerns of the HSE, was to issue in the coming days under clause 14.1(a) of the SLA. The function of a FNL is to set out in detail reasons why the HSE is concerned that a provider is in non-compliance with its obligations under its service level agreement (SLA) with the HSE. More importantly the HSE requested that the Board of the Respondent postpone decisions or actions arising from implementation of recommendations of the first and second Reports. This request was specifically directed to any recommendations relating to the executive function and was to be pending completion of the FNL process.

Notwithstanding the request from the HSE the Chair replied indicating that the request would not be complied with.

In the course of a Board meeting on 21st February 2023 the Chair and Secretary again instructed the Claimant to pay the Consulting firm’s invoices. The Secretary stated that because the invoices were below the €25,000 threshold they were not subject to procurement rules or the SLA with the HSE. Notwithstanding this, the Chairman again insisted that the HSE had directed and instructed that a review be carried out into the operational management of WIDA”. The Claimant requested all necessary documentation relating to this but same was not forthcoming.

In the course of the above meeting, and despite the request and concerns of the HSE not to act on the Report, the Claimant was informed by the Chair that the Board intended to implement its recommendations. This included the demotion of the Claimant from her post as the most senior executive officer by creating a role of chief executive officer above her. To add insult to injury the Claimant was then informed that the meeting was to be joined to by a HR consultant who was to lead this process. In the circumstances the Claimant left the meeting.

On 24th February 2023 the Chair sent to the Claimant an invoice (numbered #2 – 2023) from the Consulting firm dated 18th February 2023 in the amount of €8,071.62. At this point in time the Claimant became concerned because there were now three invoices without procurement documentation. In addition, the Claimant and FO were concerned because the total amount of invoices #1 and #2 of 2023 equalled the same amount as #1 for 2022 (being €33,066.64). The Claimant was therefore concerned that the original invoice had been split in two to avoid procurement rules and e-mailed the HR manager accordingly.

On foot of a threat of legal action from the Consulting firm over the non payment of invoices, the Claimant stated that she intended to take advice from the Respondent’s solicitors.  The Chair forbade her to do so.

By way of e-mail dated 7th March 2023 the chair stated as follows:

“I have no option now but to again instruct you to pay all outstanding invoices as have been submitted to you by the board on several occasions. You may pay them under duress if you wish, but they must be paid, to avoid attracting much greater cost, and doing irreparable damage to the company in the courts. …

If you fail to discharge the invoices as I have instructed you to do, this may have to be investigated as a refusal to follow a reasonable instruction from your employer…”.

By way of letter dated 9th March 2023 the Claimant wrote to the Chair, other individuals in the HSE. The main issue set out in this letter concerned the Chair’s instruction to discharge invoices to the Consulting firm and the Claimant’s apprehension in doing so. In the course of this letter the Claimant also stated as follows:

 “As all of you shall be aware, I have on several occasions, voiced my concerns in relation to the invoices. Furthermore, I have felt it was necessary for me to lodge protected disclosures”.

On 16th March 2023 the Claimant was absent from work due to sick leave. The policy of the Respondent in this regard is that the first two days of sick leave are self-certified by the employee. Notwithstanding this the chair e-mailed the HR manager instructing that the Claimant should be sent for medical assessment. The HR Manager replied to the effect that he could not treat the Claimant other than as required by the Respondent’s own sick policy to which the Chair replied that he was to be kept informed of any absence by the Claimant.

In or around 6th April the Claimant attended a meeting with the Chair and facilitated by Clara Learning (appointed by the HSE under clause 12.3 of the SLA). In the course of that meeting the Chair, without consent, disclosed correspondence from the solicitors acting on behalf of the PNA and the Claimant and referred to it as “rubbish”. In the course of this meeting the Chair also used words to the effect that he would see the Claimant out of WIDA before he would go anywhere.

On the 20th of April 2023 the Claimant, together with other members of the EMT, made a protected disclosure to the Charities Regulator. This disclosure included a failure of the Chair and other members of the Board to comply with and to deliberately circumvent financial controls within the Respondent. This was received by the Regulator as a protected disclosure on or about 27th April 2023.

In the course of a board meeting held 12th July 2023 at which the Claimant was present the Chair stated that the Board was, despite all of the above, committed to the implementation of the Report. More seriously he stated that the Claimant was not the chief executive officer and that the Respondent did not have an executive management team but a management team only. This was a clear demotion of the Claimant’s role and or functions.

By way of letter dated 19th July 2023 to the secretary, the PNA took issue with the comments of the chair at Board meeting of the 12th of July. In the course of that letter the deputy general secretary noted as follows:

“The Chairman and Board of WIDA are aware that Ms O’Neill, along with other employees and Board members of WIDA, have made protected disclosures. The Board are aware that those disclosures are protected disclosures as understood under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 as amended (the Act). The Board are further aware that the Act makes it unlawful for the Board to penalise Ms O’Neill or any other whistleblower, for making those protected disclosures.

SUMMARY OF THE LAW ON WHICH THE CLAIMANT WILL RELY

In respect of the law the Claimant submits that the following are the relevant legal principles to be applied:

Section 5 of the PDA provides that a protected disclosure means: ‘a disclosure of relevant information (whether before or after the date of the passing of this Act) made by a worker in the manner specified in section 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 or 10 .

(2) For the purposes of this Act 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 a work related context’.

Pursuant to section 5 (3) of the PDA the following are inter alia relevant wrongdoings:

“…

(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,

…

(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,”

Section 12 (1) of the PDA provides as follows:

‘(1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee, or cause or permit any other person to penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee, for having made a protected disclosure.

Penalisation is defined in section 3 (10) of the PDA as

“any direct or indirect act or omission which occurs in a work-related context, is prompted by the making of a report and causes or may cause unjustified detriment to a worker, and, in particular, includes—

…

(b) demotion, loss of opportunity for promotion or withholding of promotion,

(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages or change in working hours,

(d) the imposition or administering of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty),

(e) coercion, intimidation, harassment or ostracism,

(f) discrimination, disadvantage or unfair treatment,

…

(h) threat of reprisal,

A submission was made on the burden of proof.

CONCLUSIONS

Disclosures

The Claimant made the following protected disclosures:

➢A complaint of bullying and harassment in or around August 2022.

➢ On or about 26th January 2023 to Ms KW, HSE, regarding the instruction to pay invoices to the Consulting firm.

➢ On or about 20th February 2023 to the office of the authorised person for protected disclosures in the HSE (AO HSE), concerning improperly procured services and the instructions to discharge the Consulting firm’s Invoices. Accepted as a PD with the number 439.

➢ On or about 27th February 2023 to the office of the AO HSE regarding the splitting of invoices for the Consulting firm and the apprehension this was for the purposes of circumventing procurement rules.

➢ On or about the 24th of April 2023 (as part of a joint PD made by the EMT) to the Charities Regulator concerning issues relating to financial control and governance.

Acts of Penalisation

The following, although not exhaustive, are instances of penalisation by the Respondent, and in particular the chair, that occurred as a result of the complaints:

(i)Permitting the first Report, and in particular its findings in respect of the Complainant to stand despite its fundamental flaws and unwarranted and unjustified consequences for the Complainant.

(ii). Denying the Claimant her right to fair procedures and natural and constitutional justice and or failing to vindicate same adequately or at all.

(iii). Confirming its acceptance of the findings of the first Report as they related to the Claimant.

(iv). Attempting to validate its appointment of the Consulting firm (“the second report”) by continuously implying that the appointment was directed and or commissioned and or instructed and or to be funded by the HSE.

(v). Portraying the Claimant’s refusal to engage with the second report as unreasonable. (vi). Usurping and or undermining the functions of the Claimant.

(vii). Refusing to postpone implementation of the second Report despite repeated requests from the Claimant, her solicitors and the HSE.

(viii). Refusing to halt implementation of the second Report in so far as it relates to the Claimant.

(ix). Continuously instructing the Claimant to pay invoices for services procured otherwise than in accordance with procedure and where the Claimant had expressed concerns for the consequences of her doing so.

(x). Making threats to the Claimant’s employment or conditions within her employment if she did not pay invoices as instructed, in circumstances where the Claimant repeatedly raised concerns relating to the consequences of authorising same.

(xi). Attempting to coerce the Claimant into paying the said invoices with the threat of negative consequences for her employment if she failed to do so in circumstances where she raised concerns as to the legality of doing so.

(xii). Failing to provide any or any adequate independent investigation into the Claimant’s complaint of bullying and harassment.

(xiii).Instructing the Claimant not to access legal advice necessary for the proper carrying out of her role and functions.

(xiv). Oppressively monitoring the Claimant’s sick leave.

(xv). Engaging in behaviour at Board meetings that diminished the Claimant in her role. (xvi). Engaging a HR consultancy to implement the second Report, including that part relating to the role and functions of the Claimant.

(xvii). Attempting to pressure the Claimant into validating the report and processes of the second report by instructing her to partake in processes designed to implement same.

(xviii). Threatening the Claimant with adverse consequences for her employment when she stated she would require legal advice as to her involvement in processes arising from the second Report.

(xix). Sharing correspondence between the Claimant’s solicitors and the Board with Clara Learning appointed by the HSE for the purposes of overcoming governance issues.

(xx). In the course of a meeting with Clara Learning, the chair stating words to the effect that he would see the Claimant out of the Respondent.

 (xxi). Pursuing a process designed to effectively demote the Claimant and or undermine her functions and or role.

(xxii). Denying the role of the Claimant as senior executive of the EMT and or de facto chief executive of the Respondent.

In light of the foregoing and the requirements of the burden and standard of proof on the Respondent submits that it is for the Respondent to prove a complete dissonance between the detriments suffered and the disclosures referred to above.

By way of remedy and pursuant to the PDA the Claimant seeks the following:

1.Require the Respondent to quash all and parts of the Report proposing or recommending the imposition of a CEO or other office holder above the DOS in the line of management.

2. Require the Respondent to cease all steps and processes in being or contemplated to place a CEO or other office holder above the DOS in the line of management.
3. Require the Respondent to bring to an end the role of interim CEO.
4. Require the Respondent to acknowledge the role of DOS as de facto or actual CEO and most senior executive reporting to the Board.
5. Complaint(s) made by the Claimant against WIDA to be investigated by the independent and agreed third party.
6. Compensation

The Complainant gave detailed evidence of her experiences over a period of some 4 years of what she described as ‘pure torture’ inflicted on her by the former Chair of the Board. 

In summing up the Complainant’s case, Mr Shaun Boylan BL referred to the long road travelled by the Complainant in seeking justice.  From the bullying & harassment complaint from the HR Manager which could be said to have been the catalyst for the subsequent behaviour of the Chair and Secretary of the Board to the engagement of consultants designed to demote the Complainant and the actions of the Chair and the other members of the Board, it is clear that on foot of protected disclosures made by the Complainant, she had been treated adversely on the extreme end of the spectrum.  The Complainant and her Trade Union were obliged to engage in High Court action in 2024, involving considerable expense and extremely tense engagements, where the Respondent refused to give undertakings until the very last minute.  This, the Complainant’s Representative states requires compensation on the upper end of what is provided for in redress.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

As stated in the background the Respondent offered no evidence and conceded the case in full.

Findings and Conclusions:

I note the Respondent now does not contest the claims made by the Complainant and the main matter under consideration is that of redress.  While it is therefore not necessary for me to rehearse all elements of the Complainant’s complaint, nevertheless it is imperative to recount the main elements to provide a reasoned conclusion on what is required in the form of redress. 

The complaint was received on 17 August 2023.

The applicable law – definition of protected disclosure

Section 5 of the PDA provides:

5. (1) For the purposes of this Act “protected disclosure” means, subject to subsection (6), and sections 17 and 18, a disclosure of relevant information (whether before or after the date of the passing of this Act) made by a worker in the manner specified in section 6, 7 , 7B, 8 , 9 or 10 .

(2) For the purposes of this Act 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 a work-related context’.

Pursuant to section 5 (3) of the PDA the following are inter alia relevant wrongdoings:

“…

(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,

…

(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,”

The application of the law

In this instant case, I find that the Complainant made a number of protected disclosures from August 2022 to April 2023 including but not limited to:

A complaint of bullying and harassment in or around August 2022.

Protected disclosure to the HSE in January 2023 regarding the instruction to pay invoices to the Consulting firm.

Protected disclosure to the HSE On in February 2023 concerning improperly procured services and the instructions to discharge the Consulting firm’s Invoices.

Protected disclosure to the HSE in February 2023 regarding the splitting of invoices for the Consulting firm and the apprehension this was for the purposes of circumventing procurement rules.

Protected disclosure to the Charities Regulator in April 2023 concerning issues relating to financial control and governance.

I find that the Complainant made legitimate protected disclosures as defined in the Act.

I now consider the matter of alleged penalisation.

The applicable law - penalisation

Section 12 (1) of the PDA provides as follows:

‘(1) An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee, or cause or permit any other person to penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee, for having made a protected disclosure.

Section 3 of the Protected Disclosure Act defines penalisation: 

“penalisation” means any act or indirect act or omission which occurs in a work-related context, is prompted by the making of a report and causes or may cause unjustified detriment to a worker and in particular includes—

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(b) demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion or withholding promotion,

(c) transfer of duties, change of location of place of work, reduction in wages   or change in working hours,

(d) the imposition or administering of any discipline, reprimand or other penalty (including a financial penalty),

(e) coercion, intimidation, harassment or ostracism,

(f) discrimination, disadvantage or unfair treatment,

(g) injury, damage or loss,

(h) threat of reprisal.

(i) withholding of training,

(j) a negative performance assessment or reference,

(k) failure to convert a temporary employment contract into a permanent one, where the worker had a legitimate expectation that he or she would be offered permanent employment,

(l) failure to renew or early termination of a temporary employment contract,

(m) harm, including to the worker’s reputation, particularly in social media, or financial loss, including loss of business and loss of income,

(n) blacklisting on the basis of a sector or industry-wide informal or formal agreement, which may entail that the person will not, in the future, find employment in the sector or industry,

(o) the early termination or cancellation of a contract for goods or services,

(p) cancellation of a licence or permit, and

(q) psychiatric or medical referrals.

The application of the law

In this instant case, I note that the alleged penalisation of the Complainant arose in multiple situations and meets the definition of a significant number of the 18 definitions above including:

The original report (the first Report) was commissioned on foot of a complaint made of bullying and harassment against the Chairperson of the Board.  Despite the Complainant not being consulted, the report made far reaching adverse findings regarding the EMT of which the Complainant was a member.  

There then ensued a commissioning of a further report (the second Report) by a Consulting Firm which had even more far reaching consequences for the Complainant.  

The Complainant started questioning the instructions by the Chair and member of the Board regarding payment of the invoices of the Consulting Firm.  The Complainant had concerns about the engagement of the Firm without proper process.

In the course of a Board meeting on 21st February 2023 the Chair and Secretary instructed the Claimant to pay the Consulting firm’s invoices.  The Chairman insisted that the HSE had directed and instructed that a review be carried out into the operational management of WIDA.  This latter point proved not to be the case.

In the course of the meeting, and despite the request and concerns of the HSE not to act on the Report, the Complainant was informed by the Chair that the Board intended to implement its recommendations. This included the demotion of the Claimant from her post as the most senior executive officer by creating a role of chief executive officer above her.  I find that this constituted penalisation in accordance with the definitions in  Section 3 (b), (c), and (m) of the Act.

On 24th February 2023 the Chair sent to the Complainant an invoice which the Complainant was concerned that the original invoice had been split in two to avoid procurement rules and e-mailed the HR manager accordingly.

There followed a threat of legal action from the Consulting firm over the non payment of invoices. The Claimant stated that she intended to take advice from the Respondent’s solicitors.  The Chair forbade her to do so.  I find that this constituted penalisation in accordance with Section 3 (e), (h) and (m).

On 7th March 2023 the Chair stated as follows:

If you fail to discharge the invoices as I have instructed you to do, this may have to be investigated as a refusal to follow a reasonable instruction from your employer…”.

I find this constitutes a penalisation under 3 (d), (e) and (h).

On 9th March 2023 the Claimant wrote to the Chair and individuals in the HSE. The main issue set out in this letter concerned the Chair’s instruction to discharge invoices to the Consulting firm and the Claimant’s apprehension in doing so. In the course of this letter the Claimant also stated as follows:

 “As all of you shall be aware, I have on several occasions, voiced my concerns in relation to the invoices. Furthermore, I have felt it was necessary for me to lodge protected disclosures”.

On 16th March 2023 the Claimant was absent from work due to sick leave. The policy of the Respondent in this regard is that the first two days of sick leave are self-certified by the employee. Notwithstanding this the Chair e-mailed the HR manager instructing that the Claimant should be sent for medical assessment.  

I find this was an egregious breach of the Respondent’s policy and constituted penalisation under the definition in Section 3 (q) of the Act.

I note the evidence contained in the Complainant’s submission that on or around 6th April 2023 she attended a meeting with the Chair and facilitated by Clara Learning (appointed by the HSE under clause 12.3 of the SLA). In the course of that meeting the Chair, without consent, disclosed correspondence from the solicitors acting on behalf of the PNA and the Claimant and referred to it as “rubbish”. In the course of this meeting the Chair also used words to the effect that he would see the Claimant out of WIDA before he would go anywhere.

I find this constitutes penalisation under the definitions in Section 3 (e), (h) and (m) of the Act.

I note the evidence that in the course of a board meeting held 12th July 2023 at which the Claimant was present the Chair stated that the Board was committed to the implementation of the Report and that the Claimant was not the chief executive officer and that the Respondent did not have an executive management team but a management team only. This was a clear demotion of the Claimant’s role and or functions.

I find that this constitutes penalisation under the definitions in Section 3 (b), (c), and (f) of the Act.

I note the PNA’s letter of 19th July 2023 to the secretary, which took issue with the comments of the chair at Board meeting of the 12th of July 2023 and clearly stated that the Board are aware that the Act makes it unlawful for the Board to penalise Ms O’Neill or any other whistleblower, for making those protected disclosures.

In the above summarised circumstances of this complaint, I find that the Respondent penalised the Complainant in a most egregious manner throughout a long period and was fully aware of the protected disclosures made by the Complainant.

Redress

Schedule 2 provides for redress for contravention of Section 12 of the Act:

1. A decision of an adjudication officer under section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of section 12(1) shall do one or more of the following, namely-

• (a) Declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded,
• (b) Require the employer to take a specified course of action,
• (c) Subject to paragraph 2A, require the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount (if any) as the adjudication officer considers just and equitable having regard to all the circumstances, but not exceeding –
• (i) Subject to clause (ii), 260 weeks’ remuneration in respect of the employee’s employment calculated in accordance with regulations under section 17 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, or
• (ii) In the case of an employee who is a worker referred to in paragraph (h) in the definition of worker in section 3(1), and is not in receipt of remuneration, including allowances in the nature of pay and benefits in lieu of or in addition to pay, from the employer concerned, €15,000.”

I declare that the complaint is well founded.

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.

Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 requires that I make a decision in relation to the relevant redress provisions in that schedule of the Act.

Based on the findings and reasons above, I declare the complaint to be well founded and I require the Respondent to take the following course of action:

1. To quash the first and second reports.
2. To cease all steps and processes in being or contemplated to place a CEO or other office holder above the DOS in the line of management.
3. To bring to an end the role of interim CEO.
4. To acknowledge the role of the Complainant as de facto CEO and most senior executive reporting to the Board.
5. To offer a full and unequivocal apology to the Complainant for the mistreatment she suffered during the period July 2023 to May 2025.
6. I further require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant compensation of €161,620 which I consider to be just and equitable in all the circumstances of this case.

Dated:   8th July 2026

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Gaye Cunningham

Key Words: