Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Padraig  Cotter

Trabolgan Holiday Centre Ltd

Representatives

  Self-Represented

Cara Jane Walsh BL instructed by Leah Moriarty RDJ LLP

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-00074404-001

14/08/2025

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in or around May 2022 as a security officer and worked primarily weekend night shifts at the Respondent’s premises. His employment continued until its termination in November 2025. During the course of his employment, the Complainant asserts that he made a protected disclosure to the PSA concerning the alleged provision of unregulated security services.

The present complaint is confined to alleged penalisation short of dismissal under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. The Complainant contends that, following the making of the protected disclosure, he was subjected to a period of suspension on full pay for approximately three months and that his personal equipment was damaged by a work colleague in circumstances which he attributes to the Respondent. He submits that these matters constitute detriment within the meaning of the Act and were causally connected to his disclosure.

The Respondent rejects this characterisation and denies that any act of penalisation occurred. It maintains that the Complainant has not established that he made a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act, nor that any alleged detriment arose as a consequence of such disclosure. In respect of the period of suspension, the Respondent submits that this was a neutral administrative measure taken for operational reasons and not prompted by any disclosure. In relation to the alleged damage to personal property, the Respondent denies responsibility and contends that no evidence has been adduced to establish that this incident was connected to the Complainant’s employment or to any alleged protected disclosure.

It is uncontested that the Complainant made a protected disclosure as defined under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

The Complainant gave evidence that, during the course of his employment, he made a protected disclosure to the PSA concerning what he believed to be the provision of unregulated security services by the Respondent. He stated that this disclosure was made in good faith and related to matters of regulatory compliance within the Respondent’s operations.

The Complainant contended that, following this disclosure, he was subjected to penalisation within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. In particular, he identified two forms of detriment: his suspension from work on full pay for a period of approximately three months and the alleged criminal damage to his personal equipment by a work colleague.

In relation to the suspension, the Complainant stated that he was informed that he was being stood down from duties and placed on full pay. He gave evidence that no adequate explanation was provided for this decision and that he was not informed of any disciplinary process or investigation which would warrant such a measure. He described the suspension as punitive in nature and stated that it caused him stress and reputational damage. The Complainant maintained that the timing of the suspension, following closely on from his disclosure, indicated that it was prompted by that disclosure rather than by any legitimate operational requirement. The Complainant alleged the complaints made against him were contrived and that any reasonable reading of the document would show incredulous assertions by a sub-contractor to the Respondent.

In relation to the alleged damage to his personal equipment, the Complainant gave evidence that items belonging to him were interfered with and damaged while in the workplace. He attributed this conduct to a colleague and stated that the incident occurred in a work-related context. He further contended that the Respondent failed to adequately investigate or address the matter and that this failure constituted a further form of detriment. The Complainant submitted that this incident, and the Respondent’s response to it, were connected to his having made the protected disclosure and reflected a hostile environment towards him thereafter.

Under cross-examination, the Complainant accepted that he had not formally identified himself to management as the source of the complaint to the PSA and that the disclosure was made anonymously. It was put to him that the Respondent could not have taken retaliatory action in the absence of knowledge that he was the source of the disclosure. The Complainant maintained that, notwithstanding the manner in which the complaint was made, management either knew or ought to have known that he was the source, given his prior raising of concerns internally.

In relation to his suspension, it was put to the Complainant that he remained on full pay throughout and that the measure was precautionary rather than disciplinary. The Complainant did not accept this characterisation and reiterated that he was given no clear justification for the suspension. He accepted that no formal disciplinary sanction was imposed on him but maintained that the suspension itself constituted penalisation.

In respect of the alleged damage to his equipment, it was put to the Complainant that he had no direct evidence linking the Respondent to the actions of the colleague in question or demonstrating that the incident was connected to any protected disclosure. The Complainant accepted that he did not witness the damage occurring but maintained that the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable inference that it was connected to his disclosure and the subsequent treatment he experienced.

The Respondent denies that the Complainant was subjected to any form of penalisation within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. It further denies that the Complainant made a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act or that any alleged detriment was causally connected to such a disclosure.

Evidence was given on behalf of the Respondent by the General Manager, Donal O'Sullivan, and the Operations Manager, Alan Sheppard.

Mr O’Sullivan gave evidence that he had no knowledge, at any material time, of the Complainant having made a complaint to the PSA. He stated that no such complaint was brought to his attention and that, insofar as he was aware, any such communication was made anonymously. He rejected the suggestion that any decision affecting the Complainant could have been influenced by a disclosure of which management was unaware.

In relation to the Complainant’s suspension, Mr O’Sullivan stated that this was a neutral administrative measure taken for operational reasons when allegations of threatening and intimidating behaviour were made against the Complainant by employees of a sub-contractor.  He gave evidence that the Complainant was placed on full pay and that the suspension was not disciplinary in nature. He stated that the purpose of the suspension was to facilitate the orderly management of workplace issues and to allow matters to be reviewed without disruption. He rejected the characterisation of the suspension as punitive and stated that no adverse inference should be drawn from the fact that the Complainant remained in receipt of full pay throughout the period in question.

Under cross-examination, Mr O’Sullivan accepted that the Complainant was not provided with a detailed written explanation for the suspension at the time it was implemented. However, he maintained that the decision was taken in good faith and for legitimate operational reasons. It was put to him that the timing of the suspension suggested a connection with the alleged protected disclosure; he rejected this proposition and reiterated that he had no knowledge of any such disclosure.

Mr Sheppard gave evidence regarding the day-to-day management of staff and confirmed that the Complainant’s suspension did not arise from any disciplinary finding or sanction. He stated that it was not unusual in certain circumstances for an employee to be placed on paid leave as a precautionary measure. He also confirmed that the Complainant was not subject to any disciplinary outcome following the period of suspension. In relation to the elapse of three months during the investigatory period, Mr Sheppard attributed this to the extensive communication back and forth between the parties, where the Complainant scrutinised documents e.g. the minutes of meetings and where every amendment proposed by the Complainant was carried out

In relation to the alleged damage to the Complainant’s personal equipment, Mr Sheppard stated that the Respondent had no knowledge of any such incident being reported in a formal manner at the time. He denied that the Respondent was responsible for any such damage and stated that there was no evidence linking the alleged conduct of a colleague to the Respondent. He further stated that no complaint was raised through formal grievance procedures which would have allowed the matter to be investigated.

Under cross-examination, Mr Sheppard accepted that incidents occurring in the workplace could, in principle, fall within the Respondent’s remit to investigate. However, he maintained that no sufficient information was provided to the Respondent to enable such an investigation and that there was no evidence connecting the alleged damage to any protected disclosure or to any action on the part of management.

Both witnesses were consistent in their evidence that they were unaware of the Complainant having made a complaint to the PSA and that, in the absence of such knowledge, no causal link could be established between any alleged disclosure and the actions complained of.

In its legal submissions and closing statement, the Respondent argued that the Complainant had failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. It contended that the Complainant had failed to demonstrate the necessary causal nexus between any alleged disclosure and the acts complained of, as required by section 12 of the Act.

The Respondent submitted that the suspension, being on full pay and administrative in nature, did not constitute a detriment causing harm or damage to the Complainant. It further submitted that the alleged damage to personal equipment was unsupported by evidence and could not be attributed to the Respondent or linked to any disclosure. In the absence of proof of both detriment and causation, the Respondent contended that the complaint of penalisation must fail.

The Applicable Law:

Section 12 states 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.

 (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the dismissal of an employee to whom section 6(2)(ba) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 applies.

(3) Schedule 2 shall have effect in relation to an alleged contravention of subsection (1).

(4) Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to the penalisation of an employee if the employee is within paragraph (d) of section 2(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

(5) Any person who, on examination authorised under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2, wilfully makes any material statement which the person knows to be false or does not believe to be true commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both.

(6) A person to whom a notice under paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 2 has been given and who refuses or wilfully neglects to attend in accordance with the notice or who, having so attended, refuses to give evidence or refuses or wilfully fails to produce any document to which the notice relates commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class A fine…

…(7C) In any proceedings by an employee under the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in respect of an alleged contravention of subsection (1), the penalisation shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to have been as a result of the employee having made a protected disclosure, unless the employer proves that the act or omission concerned was based on duly justified grounds…

The complaint before me concerns alleged penalisation, short of dismissal. The Complainant identifies two alleged detriments: his suspension on full pay for approximately three months following complaints made by a third-party contractor and alleged criminal damage to his personal equipment by a work colleague.

In assessing whether the warning was penalisation “for having made a protected disclosure,” I considered whether the evidence demonstrated that the protected disclosure materially influenced the decision to commence suspend the Complainant on full day pending investigation of gross misconduct as distinct from the disclosure merely forming part of the background chronology. Furthermore, I need to examine the allegation of criminal damage and whether this falls credibly within the definition of penalisation by the Respondent.  

For the purposes of this decision, I proceed on the basis that the Complainant’s communication to the PSA concerning alleged unregulated security services amounted to a protected disclosure within the meaning of section 5 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

The statutory test requires more than the existence of a protected disclosure followed by an adverse event. There must be a causal connection between the making of the disclosure and the alleged detriment. I have considered the reasoning in the WRC decision opened to me (ADJ-00054233 Siobhan Rodgers v Wilsons Hospital School) where the Adjudication Officer emphasised that detriment must be established and that the act complained of must result from the making of the protected disclosure.

The central difficulty for the Complainant is the absence of evidence establishing that the relevant decision-makers knew that he had made the disclosure to the PSA. The complaint to the PSA was made anonymously. The Complainant asserted that management must have known or inferred that he was the source of the complaint. However, no documentary or direct evidence was adduced to support that assertion.

By contrast, Mr Donal O’Sullivan, and Mr Alan Sheppard both gave sworn evidence that they were unaware, at the relevant time, that the Complainant had made the disclosure to the PSA. I accept that evidence. In the absence of knowledge by the decision-makers, I cannot find that the subsequent suspension, or the handling of any issue concerning the Complainant’s personal equipment, was prompted by the protected disclosure.

In relation to the suspension, I accept the evidence that the Respondent received written complaints from a third-party contractor who participated in refitting and renovation of holiday site amenities, concerning alleged conduct by the Complainant. The Complainant strongly disputed the truth of those allegations and maintained that they were contrived. However, the issue before me is not whether the third-party allegations were unproven, as was the case, but whether the decision to suspend him on full pay was causally connected to his protected disclosure. The evidence establishes that the suspension arose from the contractor’s complaint and was imposed on full pay pending investigation. No disciplinary sanction was imposed, and the Complainant returned to work. This is highly significant because if the logic of the Complainant’s argument is followed through, then this would have been an opportunity to penalise him i.e. dismissal or a serious sanction short of dismissal. At most, it pointed to a breakdown in the relationship between the Complainant and the sub-contractor only, and not with the Respondent. The subcontractor could not plausibly be in the equation with matters relating to the PSA. Having considered the foregoing evidence, I am not satisfied that the suspension was prompted by the making of the protected disclosure.

In relation to the alleged damage to personal equipment, the Complainant attributed this to a work colleague and asserted that it formed part of a hostile environment following his disclosure. However, no evidence was adduced to establish that the Respondent directed, authorised, encouraged or condoned such conduct. Nor was evidence adduced showing that the alleged colleague knew of the protected disclosure or that the alleged damage was connected to it. On the evidence before me, the submission of this incident, based on speculative assertion only, cannot be elevated into an act of penalisation by the Respondent within the meaning of the Act.

I am satisfied that the Respondent has established there was no required nexus between the protected disclosure and either alleged detriment. The fact that a protected disclosure was made, and that workplace events later occurred, is insufficient. The Act requires that the detriment be prompted by the making of the disclosure. That causal requirement has not been met.

CA-00074404-001: For the reasons outlined above,I find that the complaint of penalisation under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 was not well founded.

Penalisation. Protected Disclosures Act 2014.