Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Complainant

A Respondent

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00070537-001

03/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00070537-002

03/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00070537-003

03/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00070537-004

03/04/2025

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

CA-00070537-005

03/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Regulation 18 of the European Communities (Road Transport)(Organisation of Working Time of Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2012 - S.I. No. 36/2012

CA-00070537-007 WITHDRAWN

03/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

CA-00070537-008 WITHDRAWN

03/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00070537-009

03/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00070537-010

03/04/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

CA-00070537-011 WITHDRAWN DUPLICATE CLAIM

03/04/2025

These matters came before the Workplace Relations Commission dated 03/04/2025.   Accordingly, the cognisable period for these complaints is 04/10/2024 – 03/04/2025.  The Complainant alleges contraventions by the Respondent of provisions of the above listed statutes in relation to his employment with the Respondent.  The aforesaid complaints were referred to me for investigation.  A hearing for that purpose was scheduled to take place initially on 24/10/2025.   

The Complainant is a former employee of the Respondent.  The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a Security Officer at all material times.  The Complainant commenced his  employment with the Respondent on 22/03/2022 such employment terminating by reason of resignation with immediate effect on 12/04/2025.  The Complainant worked on average 45 hours weekly for which he was paid €750.00 gross per week. 

The initial hearing of these matters was adjourned on 24/10/2025 in order to provide the Complainant with the opportunity to provide specific particulars in regard to his various claims after it became apparent during the hearing that the Complainant had no evidence to present at hearing to support many of the claims being pursued. 

Accordingly, the hearing on 24/10/2025 was conducted by way of case management in order to ascertain which complaints were properly before me and to provide the unrepresented Complainant with information regarding the level of detail required to support his claims under the various legislative provisions. 

The WRC complaint form provided little by way of specifics and the written submission as set out hereunder provided insufficient specific detail in support of the claims.  Accordingly, the matter was set down for a further hearing on 12/03/2026. 

The Respondent provided written submissions and supporting documentation in advance of the initial hearing scheduled for 24/10/2025.  The Complainant provided a number of emails threads on a word document post-hearing by way of support for his claims.  

The Complainant emailed the WRC as follows on 05 March 2026: “the case is only on [redacted] because of the stress, long hours, bullying and medical negligence as I was working for them.  Social Welfare, immigration department, Garda and everyone else were helping me.  I am really sorry for the confusion as I had accidents and got fractures and got head injury”.   

Written submission of Complainant 11/04/2025

Hope you are doing well. My name is [redacted] I made complaint to WRC against my company and to HR but HR came up with investigation report which is totally wrong and manipulated. Just Little glimpse what I have gone through with my company.

In Corona virus time One employee was positive for Corona virus and I was sitting next to her on work. I requested my company Manager to take me out of site, so I do not get virus , but my manager laughed on me and left me there working with her for 3 days. Under HSE guidelines - She and me both should not have been on site but my company ignored HSE guidelines and let me worked there with her.

Proper rest breaks -I did not get proper daily and weekly rest breaks. They do not keep any record of breaks as breaks depend on work load. If its busy we do not get breaks. Even if we are on work and any delivery comes in Loading bay , we have to leave food and have to go to loading bay to get delivery first. I made complaint to my Company manager but they put pressure on me and reduced my hours.

Back pain - Because of Accident in [client site redacted] I had a big accident on work and they ignored the accident and forced me to worked at the same place doing same duty till 2024 end and was rostered to do it last month as well.

Sleeping problem - Sleep cycle got disturbed because of night shifts. I requested a lot of times to my company that I cannot do night shifts but was forced to do it. Body digestive system problem - I did not get proper daily and weekly rest breaks which resulted in problem with my body digestive system.

Stress - Stress was given by company as I was complaining about their work ethics. I made complaint but no action was taken.  I had two times toothache on work but no one was available to cover me , so whole day I was in pain on job and got to doctor with employee after the shift as no one was available to cover me. I also broke my tooth on work one day but no one was available to cover my shift so whole day I was in pain and was working and survived on pain killers. Next day I got my tooth removed from dentist.

Corona Virus - Maybe If I could have got the virus but Luckily, I survived. If something would have happened to me, [redacted] only have lost one employee but my wife and kids have lost their family.

Health and Safety – [redacted] have duty to protect their employee's health and safety but that was not followed.

Medical Negligence – [redacted] did not help me when I was going through medical problems which shows medical negligence. I had accident on scooter , instead of taking me to doctor they dropped me home. Corona Virus time negligence. Was forced to do Night shifts , No daily and weekly rest breaks. [SIC] 

CA-00070537-001 complaint seeking adjudication under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

The Complainant claims he was dismissed for a discriminatory reason or for opposing discrimination.  It is the Complainant’s evidence that he made a complaint about the discrimination at a client site and made complaints and that’s why they put him off the roster and not replying to his email. 

CA-00070537-002 complaint seeking adjudication under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant claims he did not get a daily rest period and the narrative on the complaint form provides as follows:  I made a complaint and investigation is under process. 

CA-00070537-003 complaint seeking adjudication under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant claims he did not get weekly rest period and the narrative on the complaint form provides as follows:  I made a complaint and investigation is under process. 

CA-00070537-004 complaint seeking adjudication under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Complainant claims he was penalised or threatened with penalisation for giving evidence in any proceedings or giving notice of his intention of doing so under the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.  The narrative on the complaint form provides as follows: I made a complaint and I am off roster. 

At hearing the Complainant submits the complaint is really about not getting rostered for bank holidays. 

CA-00070537-005 complaint seeking adjudication under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.  The Complainant claims he was penalised or threatened with penalisation by his employer for having made a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.  The narrative on the complaint form provides as follows: I made a complaint and investigation is under process. 

At hearing, upon enquiry, the Complainant was unsure of what constituted a protected disclosure.  The relevant legislation and definitions were provided to both parties at hearing and time was given to review same. 

Having reviewed same, the Complainant when the hearing resumed claims that people following him and making fun of him and treating him like a criminal was the protected disclosure.

The Complainant submits in his supplemental submissions he made a protected disclosure when he went to Garda station to tell the truth about drug activity which was operated by one of the clients.  

The Complainant submits he was penalised for “telling the truth and was bulling and tortured by everyone as they all wanted me to keep his mouth shut.” 

CA-00070537-009 complaint seeking adjudication under section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005

The Complainant submits he was penalised for complying with or making a complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2995.  The narrative on the complaint form provides as follows:  I made a complaint about accident on work investigation is underway and I am off rostered for making complaints. 

CA-00070537-010 complaint seeking adjudication under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

In the WRC complaint referral form, the Complainant asserted that the Respondent has not provided him with a reasoned reply to his request for employment with more predictable and secure working conditions within one month of the request.

The narrative on the complaint form provides as follows:  No changes at work after the accident or incident.  The Complainant avers at hearing to the accident in 2022 and also to a day in work when he had a toothache and he had to work the whole day until his supervisor took him to the dentist.  The Complainant avers at hearing to another day where he took his own tooth out on site. 

CA-00070537-001 complaint seeking adjudication under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

The Complainant was on sick leave from 21 February to 31 March due to a scooter accident so he was not removed from the roster after raising his grievance on 22 March.   

At the time this complaint was raised the Complainant was waiting for an OC heath appointment on a paid week off.    

CA-00070537-002 complaint seeking adjudication under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

It is conceded there were two instances where the daily rest period was not compliant with the legislation following an audit since the commencement of the Complainant’s employment in March 2022 up April 2025 namely on 1st / 2nd April 2022 and 11th / 12th January 2024. 

CA-00070537-003 complaint seeking adjudication under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

There is no Respondent case in circumstances where no evidence was adduced in support of this claim. 

CA-00070537-004 complaint seeking adjudication under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The Respondent submits there was no decrease in the bank holidays for which the Complainant was rostered.  He was rostered for 4 bank holidays in 2023.  He was rostered for 7 bank holidays in 2024. 

CA-00070537-005 complaint seeking adjudication under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

The Respondent submits the employee handbook which the Complainant confirmed he had reviewed contains a comprehensive policy on protected disclosures at appendix 7.  This policy identifies by name the staff member who has day-to-day operational responsibility for the policy and the Complainant shouldn’t have been in any doubt as to who to contact for any clarification he might need. 

The Respondent submits protected disclosures did not form part of the Complainant’s grievance and they were only made aware of this when they received the WRC complaint form.  There was no documentation, complaint or concerns or proofs forwarded to the named staff member to support this.    

CA-00070537-009 complaint seeking adjudication under section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005

The Respondent submits that the Complainant made reference to an accident at work during the investigation into his grievance.  This accident occurred in August 2022 where the Complainant alleges a bag of clothes fell on him.  The Complainant forwarded an email to the security manager; no formal complaint was raised and no incident report was completed.  There were no sick leave absences recorded.  The Complainant was removed from that site at his request and the most recent date he might have worked there was August 2024 as he was rostered to work there again a few times. 

CA-00070537-010 complaint seeking adjudication under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

It is the first time the Respondent has heard that the Complainant removed his own tooth on site.  It is reiterated by the Respondent that the Complainant was removed from the [redacted]site at his own request he was rostered again in May 2023 when laundry duties no longer formed part of security duties by that time. 

The Respondent remains unclear what case it has to answer in terms of this complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.   The Respondent submits that the Complainant’s contract of employment already provided for predictable and secure working conditions.

In conducting my investigation and in reaching my decision, I have reviewed all relevant submissions and supporting documentation presented to me by the parties.  I have carefully considered the oral evidence adduced at hearing.  I deemed it necessary to make my own inquiries into the complaint during hearing to establish and understand the facts and to seek clarification on certain matters on numerous occasions.  

I am obliged to draw my conclusions from the facts as presented to me and by the application of the law to those said facts whilst taking into account all other relevant factors and surrounding circumstances.  The role of the Adjudication Officer is to decide the case before him/her, resolving conflicts in evidence according to the direct evidence presented at hearing.      

I have been presented with two very different versions of events from the parties as they outlined their respective positions on matters raised.      

Notwithstanding, where the evidence of the parties differs greatly and cannot be reconciled findings are made on the balance of probabilities.  In my decision-making role I am constrained both by statute and by precedent. 

CA-00070537-001 complaint seeking adjudication under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

It is the Complainant’s case that he was dismissed for a discriminatory reason or for opposing discrimination. 

The Complainant was not dismissed from his employment for a discriminatory reason or for any reason.  I am satisfied the Complainant resigned from his employment. 

Furthermore, for the avoidance of any doubt the Complainant had neither resigned nor been dismissed as alleged at the time of the referral of these complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission on 03/04/2025.  The Complainant resigned with immediate effect on 12/04/2025.      

Therefore, I can only conclude this complaint as presented is not well-founded. 

CA-00070537-002 complaint seeking adjudication under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

The cognisable period for this complaint is from 04/10/2024 to 03/04/2025.  I am unable to identify a contravention within the cognisable period.  For completeness, I have had regard to section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 which provides as follows in respect of time limits: 

“Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates.” 

Section 41(8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 provides that if a complaint is not submitted within six months of the alleged contravention, an extension may be granted by an Adjudication Officer up to a maximum time limit of twelve months where, in the opinion of the Adjudication Officer, the Complainant has demonstrated reasonable cause for the delay in accordance with the provisions:

“An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than six months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.”  [emphasis added] 

I note the Complainant at hearing did make a reference to an extension of time and upon enquiry he submitted he hadn’t make his complaint on time ‘because of his head after his three accidents.’  I note there was no medical evidence presented in support of this. 

Notwithstanding, complaints brought to the attention of the WRC after twelve months simply cannot be entertained and I am unable to assume jurisdiction where I have none. 

For completeness, the contraventions as alleged and conceded by the Respondent occurred 1st / 2nd April 2022 and 11th / 12th January 2024 both of which dates are in excess of one year prior to the filing of this complaint on 03/04/2025.   

There is no discretion under the Act for an Adjudication Officer to further extend the time limit past the 12-month period.

This position has been confirmed by the Labour Court in Fallon and Byrne v Kelvin Gopaul[PWD241] where the Court determined:

“The Court is of the view that the limitation periods set out in the Workplace Relations Act 2015 are clear and precise and it is confined to those limitation periods. The Labour Court is a creature of statute, and its powers and duties are derived solely from statute. The Court cannot assume a jurisdiction which has not been conferred to it by statute and does not have a ‘discretion’ to vary the time limits set down in relevant statutes. Clearly, a failure on the part of a Complainant to present a complaint in time deprives the Adjudication Officer, and this Court on appeal, of jurisdiction to hear the claim. As a result, the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.” [emphasis added] 

Accordingly, I find I do not have jurisdiction to hear this specific complaint as it is statute-barred.      

CA-00070537-003 complaint seeking adjudication under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 (“the 1997 Act”)

The Relevant Law

“Rest period” is defined in Section 2(1) of the 1997 Act as “any time that is not working time”.   Thereafter, “working time” is defined as any time that the employee is either, “at his or her place of work or at this or her employer’s disposal” and “be carrying on or performing the activities or duties of his or her work.”

In the case of Tribune Printing and Publishing Group v. Graphical Print and Media Union [DWT 6/2004] the Labour Court held that not only is there an obligation on an employer to ensure that their employees receive rest break, but also that:

“…employees could take rest breaks if they wished and not putting in place proper procedures to ensure that the employee receives those breaks thus protecting his health and safety, does not discharge that duty”

The Relevant Facts

There was no evidence presented to support this claim with regard to specific dates or times or occurrences apart from generalised allegations by the Complainant that he was prevented from taking his lunch break “every day” and his food got cold which, on balance, I find I am unable to accept against a backdrop of inconsistencies in the evidence adduced throughout.  I note the Complainant accepted that he got rest breaks including regular smoking breaks and I note the Complainant accepted breaks are paid by the Respondent. 

It is well settled that a Complainant must particularise their claim so that it can be defended and that the Employer knows what case they must answer.

While it is appreciated the Complainant is litigant in person and this has been taken into consideration, it is not simply enough for a party to tick boxes on the WRC complaint form and expect the Respondent to answer nebulous or vague complaints which are unsupported by evidence.

Furthermore, while an Adjudicator has a statutory duty to make all relevant inquiries into a complaint, this duty does not extend to making a case for either party. 

It is incumbent on a complainant to present relevant information and evidence in a manner that is plausible and understandable.  The Complainant did not do so at the adjudication hearing, nor in his submissions, nor in his supplemental submissions as requested at the initial hearing, nor in the WRC complaint form on the referral of his complaints in the first instance.     

I am mindful of the inconsistencies in the evidence as presented by the Complainant and the difficulties encountered in attempting to elicit clarification or specific facts or specific details in circumstances where the Complainant in his evidence continued to pivot towards recurring themes despite best efforts to fulfil my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into these complaints.         

For completeness, I note the effect of section 25 of the 1997 Act as outlined by the Labour Court in ISS Ireland Ltd v Gfencheva [DWT1157].   The 1997 Act does not confer on an employee a cause of action for an employer’s failure to maintain records in accordance with section 25(1) of the Act.  I also note that in Gfencheva the Court stated that the obligation on the Respondent employer to keep records as provided for at section 25 of the Act and the onus on the employer of proving in proceedings that this provision was complied with is subject to the Complainant adducing some facts that non-compliance has occurred.  [emphasis added]

In Ryanair v The Labour Court[2007] ELR 67 the Supreme Court stated that the Labour Court can only make findings that are supported by evidence and/or by the evidence that is presented to it. In accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court, any such statutory body cannot reach conclusions in the absence of relevant oral evidence and documentation.

The burden is on the Complainant to adduce such evidence as is available to support a stateable case of non-compliance with a relevant provision of the Act.   I can only conclude this complaint as presented to be not well-founded. 

CA-00070537-004 complaint seeking adjudication under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

I note the Complainant alleges penalisation under the impleaded legislation and claims that he was penalised or threatened with penalisation for giving evidence in or giving notice of his intention do so under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 (“the 1997 Act”)

The Relevant Law

Section 26 of the 1997 Act provides as follows.

26. Protection against penalisation

(1) An employer shall not penalise an employee for having in good faith opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act or the Activities of Doctors in Training Regulations.

(2) If a penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (1), constitutes a dismissal of the employee within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015, relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of that penalisation both under this Part and under those Acts.

(3) In proceedings under Part 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 in relation to a complaint of a failure to comply with subsection (1) it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved that the employee concerned has acted reasonably and in good faith in forming the opinion and making the communication concerned.

(4) If a penalisation of an employee, in contravention of subsection (1), constitutes a dismissal of the employee within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015, relief may not be granted to the employee in respect of that penalisation both under this Act and under those Acts.

(5) In this section “penalisation” means any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects an employee to his or her detriment with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes—

(a)    suspension, lay-off or dismissal (including a dismissal within the meaning of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015), or the threat of suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(b)    demotion or loss of opportunity for promotion,

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

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

(e)    coercion or intimidation.

In University College Cork v Keohane [DWT0147] the Labour Court held that:

“In order to make out her complaint of penalisation it is necessary for the complainant to establish a causal link between her activities in seeking to have section 19 of the Act applied by the respondent and some detriment which she suffered in her employment. Such a link can be established by reference to particular facts or by inference from all the surrounding circumstances.”

As the Labour Court pointed out in O’Neill v Toni and Guy Blackrock Limited [E.L.R. 21] albeit under a different statute:

“It is clear from the language of this section that in order to make out a complaint of penalisation it is necessary for a claimant to establish that the detriment of which he or she complains was imposed “for” having committed one of the acts protected by subsection 3.Thus the detriment giving rise to the complaint must have been incurred because of, or in retaliation for, the Claimant having committed a protected act. This suggested that where there is more than one causal factor in the chain of events leading to the detriment complained of the commission of a protected act must be an operative cause in the sense that “but for” the Claimant having committed the protected act he or she would not have suffered the detriment. This involves a consideration of the motive or reasons which influenced the decision maker in imposing the impugned determent.”

The Complainant must, therefore, establish that he committed a protected act, within the meaning of section 26(1) of the Act, before the other elements in this test come into play.

Section 26(1) provides that “An employer shall not penalise an employee for having in good faith opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act or the Activities of Doctors in Training Regulations.”

The proofs required to ground a complaint of penalisation were explained to the Complainant.  It was explained that there are two stages in a penalisation process; the first is the making of a complaint (or the threat to do so) as outlined in section 27 (3) of the impleaded legislation.  The second stage is a subsequent act of retaliation by an employer for having done so. 

It was explained to the Complainant that this is referred to as causation and what this means is there must be a causal connection between the two.  The Complainant has failed to identify anything that would meet the legal criterion to be considered an act of penalisation.

For completeness, the complaint about failure to roster the Complainant for bank holidays appeared to relate to 2023 which is outside of my jurisdiction in terms of the cognisable period of these complaints.   

Considering the foregoing, I find that the Complainant has failed to establish that he in good faith opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act.

Accordingly, I can only conclude this complaint as presented to be not well-founded. 

CA-00070537-005 complaint seeking adjudication under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

It is the Complainant’s case that he was penalised or threatened with penalisation for having made a protected disclosure.

I note the Respondent denies that the Complainant made a protected disclosure and further that there was any penalisation of the Complainant.   I note the Respondent has a protected disclosures policy which contains a disclosure procedure.  I note the Respondent’s assertion that the first mention of a protected disclosure made by the Complainant was in the WRC complaint form. 

The Relevant Law

The Protected Disclosures Act 2014 came into force (by way of S.I. No. 327 of 2014) on the 15th of July 2014. It was amended by the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022 which came into operation (by way of S.I. No. 510 of 2022) on the 1st of January 2023 and further by S.I. No. 375 of 2023 which came into operation on 22 July 2023.  All of those amendments were in force when the events the subject matter of this claim arose.  In this decision the Act along with the amending legislation will collectively be referred to as “the PDA”. 

The definition of “protected disclosure" is set out at section 5(1) of the PDA:  

For the purposes of this Act “protected disclosure” means, subject to subsections (6) and (7A) and sections 17 and 18, a disclosure of relevant information … made by a worker in the manner specified in section 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10.

Sections (6) and (7A) respectively address the disclosure of trade secrets and legally privileged information and these are not relevant for this complaint.  Sections 17 and 18 refer to law enforcement and international relations and are also not relevant here.  Sections 6 to 10 set out a tiered disclosure process and provides that information related to wrongdoings may be provided to a prescribed person, an employer, a government minister, a legal advisor or to another person.

A “protected disclosure” therefore, is the disclosure by an employee to his or her employer, or another person, of relevant information. Section 5(2) of the Act provides that,

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 connection with the worker’s employment.

In Barrett v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2023] IECA 112, the Court of Appeal emphasised that in order for something to amount to a protected disclosure, the worker must have a ”reasonable belief” that it tends to show relevant wrongdoing; this introduces an objective standard, requiring that “a reasonable person would have held the belief if he or she had the same information as the worker”.

Section 5(3) of the PDA provides that the following are relevant wrongdoings for the purposes of the Act:

(a) that an offence has been, is being or is likely to be committed,

(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,

(c) that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur,

(d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered,

(e) that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged,

(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,

(g) that an act or omission by or on behalf of a public body is oppressive, discriminatory or grossly negligent or constitutes gross mismanagement, or

(h) that information tending to show any matter falling within any of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be concealed or destroyed.

Section 5(5) of the PDA provides “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”.

Section 5(5A) of the PDA provides“A matter concerning interpersonal grievances exclusively affecting a reporting person, namely, grievances about interpersonal conflicts between the reporting person and another worker, or a matter concerning a complaint by a reporting person to,or about,his or her employer which concerns the worker exclusively, shall not be a relevant wrongdoing for the purposes of this Act and may be dealt with through any agreed procedures applicable to such grievances or complaint to which the reporting person has access or such other procedures, provided in accordance with any rule of law or enactment (other than this Act), to which the reporting person has access.

Section 5(7) of the PDA provides “the motivation for making a disclosure is irrelevant to whether or not it is a protected disclosure”.

Section 5(8) of the PDA provides “in proceedings involving an issue as to whether a disclosure is a protected disclosure it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that it is”.  The effect of this provision is to place the burden of proof in relation to a protected disclosure on the Respondent.

Section 6 of the PDA sets out the way a disclosure is to be made in order to come within the ambit of the Act:

6. (1) A disclosure is made in the manner specified in this section if the worker makes it—

(a) to the worker’s employer, or

(b) where the worker reasonably believes that the relevant wrongdoing which the disclosure tends to show relates solely or mainly—

(i) to the conduct of a person other than the worker’s employer, or

(ii) to something for which a person other than the worker’s employer has legal responsibility,

to that other person.

(2) A worker who, in accordance with a procedure the use of which by the worker is authorised by the worker’s employer, makes a disclosure to a person other than the employer is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as making the disclosure to the employer.

Section 3(1) of the PDA defines penalisation as follows:

“penalisation" means 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

(a) suspension, lay-off or dismissal,

(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,

(g) injury, damage or loss,

(h) threat of reprisal,

(i) withholding of training,

(j) a negative performance assessment or employment 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) early termination or cancellation of a contract for goods or services,

(p) cancellation of a licence or permit, and

(q) psychiatric or medical referrals;”

There are three components to the making out of a claim of penalisation under the PDA: 

1.  An employee must have a reasonable belief that a wrongdoing is occurring, has occurred or might occur;

2.  They must communicate what they know about the alleged wrongdoing to a prescribed person, their employer, a government minister, a legal advisor or another person;

3.  They must show that, because of their communication about the alleged wrongdoing, they have been penalised.

The Relevant Facts

At hearing, the Complainant did not have any knowledge of what a protected disclosure is or of what the content of the purported protected disclosure might be.  Having been provided with the relevant legislation during hearing for review and having been provided with time to review same the Complainant submits the protected disclosure related to his health and safety; people were following him and making fun of him and treating him like a criminal and bullying him. 

I note in his supplemental submissions the Complainant submits he made a protected disclosure when he went to the Garda station to tell the truth about drug activity which was allegedly operated by one of the clients.  

It is well settled that an employee need not expressly invoke the PDA when making the communication in question in order for it to be recognised as a protected disclosure. 

I am mindful of Clarke v. CGI Food Services Limited and CGI Holdings Limited [2020] IEHC 368 in which Humphreys J held as follows:

“[o]ne can make a protected disclosure without invoking the 2014 Act or without using the language of “protected disclosure”.  

It is the Complainant’s case that the emails that he sent to the Senior Contracts Manager were protected disclosures because they concerned his health and safety.   It is the Complainant’s case as set out in his supplemental submissions that he went to a Garda station to report drug activity and that was a protected disclosure. 

I note during the course of the investigation into the grievance he had raised the Complainant stated he would not be going to the Gardai despite an offer from the Respondent to accompany him. 

Therefore, I remain unclear as to whether the Complainant reported the matter alleged to the Gardai due to the inconsistencies in the evidence provided and the lack of any specific detail thereof.         

Notwithstanding, I must first determine, as a matter of fact and law, whether the communications to the Respondent relied upon by the Complainant constitute a protected disclosure within the meaning of the PDA applying the statutory definitions and presumptions.  

If that threshold is met, I must then consider whether the Complainant was penalised for making that disclosure.   

While it the case that the Complainant’s email to the Senior Contracts manager might meet the definition of a protected disclosure and while considering that where in proceedings there is an issue as to whether a disclosure is a protected disclosure, section 5(8) of the 2014 Act provides that it is presumed to be protected disclosure until the contrary is proven. [emphasis added] I am satisfied the Respondent has not rebutted the presumption. 

However, I am unable to find that the Complainant was penalised as alleged even by imputing the most expansive meaning possible to the subsection.  The reasons supporting this finding are set out below under CA-00070537-009.  I have very carefully considered the evidence and am not satisfied of penalisation or threatened penalisation against the Complainant in the cognisable period. 

I therefore find the complaint of a contravention of section 12(1) of the 2014 Act to be not well-founded.    

The penalisation alleged (being rostered for less hours) is based on the same factual matrix as set out hereunder.      

CA-00070537-009 complaint seeking adjudication under section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005

At the outset, it is noted the Complainant has brought separate sets of proceedings under both the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 and the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.  The Labour Court outlined in PDD218 Hyde And Seek Glasnevin V Jade Byrne-Hoey, citing Culkin v. Sligo County Council (2017) IECA 104, that “…..while ‘Culkin’ permits cases with the same facts to proceed in different fora, where they concern different losses, a claimant cannot recover more than once in respect of the same loss.”

The Relevant Law

Section 27 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act 2005 (the “2005 Act”) protects against penalisation.  Penalisation is defined in section 27(1) as follows:

“In this section “penalisation” includes any act or omission by an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer that affects, to his or her detriment, an employee with respect to any term or condition of his or her employment.”

Section 27(2) provides, without prejudice to the general definition in section 27(1), examples of penalisation, and specifically includes change of location of place of work.

Section 27(3) sets out the protected acts:-

“An employer shall not penalise or threaten penalisation against an employee for—

(a) acting in compliance with the relevant statutory provisions,

(b) performing any duty or exercising any right under the relevant statutory provisions,

(c) making a complaint or representation to his or her safety representative or employer or the Authority, as regards any matter relating to safety, health or welfare at work,

(d) giving evidence in proceedings in respect of the enforcement of the relevant statutory provisions,

(e) being a safety representative or an employee designated under section 11 or appointed under section 18 to perform functions under this Act, or

(f) subject to subsection (6), in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he or she could not reasonably have been expected to avert, leaving (or proposing to leave) or, while the danger persisted, refusing to return to his or her place of work or any dangerous part of his or her place of work, or taking (or proposing to take) appropriate steps to protect himself or herself or other persons from the danger.”

It is noted the Complainant made reference to a number of accidents during the course of hearing namely three accidents two of which were scooter accidents that occurred during his commute.  It was apparent that the Complainant believed that accidents that may occur on the way to or from work are matters for which an employer bears responsibility. 

It was explained to the Complainant that travel from home to his place of work i.e. the daily commute is not considered working time. [emphasis added]

In the interests of clarity and for the avoidance of doubt I note the following set out in Gfencheva:

 “The time spent by a worker while engaged in travelling, which is wholly, exclusively and necessarily undertaken in the performance of a contractual obligation of their employment, and where the commencement point and the finishing point together with the time allocated for travelling is determined by the employer, must be regarded as working time with the meaning of the Act.” [emphasis added] 

Turning now to the workplace accident which was a recurring topic in the Complainant’s evidence.    The cognisable period of this complaint is from 04/10/2024 to 03/04/2025.  The alleged workplace accident occurred in 2022 following which he made a complaint to his manger by email and requested to be removed from the site which was facilitated at that time. 

The Complainant seeks to argue that the Respondent was medically negligent in regard to the two scooter accidents that occurred during his daily commute.  There were repeated references by the Complainant to this during hearing and for that reason I address it. 

It was explained to the Complainant that medical negligence occurs when a healthcare professional breaches their duty of care to a patient.     

The penalisation alleged is that the Complainant was rostered for less hours and I will address it for completeness albeit the accident at work occurred in 2022.  This allegation is simply not borne out by the facts as in 2022 (year of the accident) the Complainant was rostered on average weekly for 48.06 hours.  In 2023 he was rostered for 50.88 hours average weekly and in 2024 he was provided with 45.92 average weekly hours which is based on the hours worked and does not take into account the shifts he would have been offered and dropped.  These hours comprised 90% day shifts and I note this was the Complainant’s preference which was facilitated by the Respondent albeit I note the contact of employment provides as follows in clause 6:

6.1. Your normal working hours are variable each week as rostered from Monday to Sunday. Due to the nature of our work, our roster pattern operates on a 24/7 basis. [emphasis added]

I can find no evidence of penalisation in the manner alleged.  I therefore decide that the complaint of a contravention of section 27 of the 2005 Act is not well-founded. 

CA-00070537-010 complaint seeking adjudication under section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (“the 1994 Act”)

The Complainant complains his employer has not provided him with a reasoned reply to his request for employment with more predictable and secure working conditions within one month of his request. 

The Relevant Law

Section 6F of the 1994 Act

“Transition to another form of employment

(1) Subject to subsection (2), an employee who has been in the continuous service of an employer for not less than 6 months and who has completed his or her probationary period, if any, may request a form of employment with more predictable and secure working conditions where available and receive a reasoned written reply from his or her employer.

(2) An employee may, once in any 12 month period, request a form of employment in accordance with subsection (1).

(3) An employer shall provide the reasoned written reply referred to in subsection (1) to an employee within one month of the request by the employee.

(4) An employer may provide an oral reply where a subsequent similar request is submitted by the same worker where the situation of the worker remains unchanged.

(5) This section shall not apply to seafarers or sea fishermen.”

The Relevant Facts

It is clear that the Complainant has little or no understanding of the applicability of the impleaded legislation to the instant complaint as he provided evidence on a completely different matter namely that he had a toothache and there was nobody to cover him and he didn’t get a lift to the dentist until the end of the day and on another occasion he had to remove his own tooth in the workplace.    

The Complainant gave evidence that the Respondent was medically negligent when they drove him home after one of his scooter accidents and they should have driven him to a hospital instead. 

I have carefully noted the considerable amount of email traffic between the parties during the course of the Complainant’s employment.  There has been exhaustive local engagement between the Complainant and the Respondent ongoing for a considerable period of time comprising a number of contradictory and varying emails.   

I have observed there is a discernible pattern where the Complainant will set out various complaints / allegations or requesting specific changes to his work locations or work rosters and this is soon followed by an email requesting that the previous email be ignored. 

I have observed a similar pattern in the email traffic between the Complainant and the WRC for example an email to the WRC on 16 May 2025 was subsequently referred to in an email of 23 May 2025 where the Complainant apologies for the previous email.  This occurred again when the Complainant sent an email to the WRC on 24 November 2025 containing allegations against a number of state agencies and which was subsequently retracted by email on 05/03/3026. 

I do not find it necessary to set out the content of the aforesaid emails but suffice it to say there are matters alleged therein that are way beyond the scope of this investigation. 

The Complainant submitted throughout the hearing that he had sought to be removed from the site in which he was currently working and the Respondent refused.  However, I note an email of 11 September 2024 from the Complainant which provides as follows: 

“Hope you are doing well. Please ignore my last email where I said about stress. I was going through some personal health issues. I would like to apologize to everyone including [redacted] and [redacted] . I Would be happy to work on any site but pay scale need to be increased for[redacted] if possible back dated. I will still be looking for a good opportunity near my house as I want to live with my family. Please let me know for the same. Please do not share this email except management.”

I note an email from the Complainant to the Respondent of 19 November 2024 which provides as follows: 

“Hope you are doing well. I need 29 November off as that's my son's birthday. I was already off on the Roster but someone put shift in my roster. As per our conversation last time , my phone was hacked and I believed that was one of our client who was sacked from the job. I had too much stress because of them when I was sending the emails. I would also like to know why everyone believed in him and put soh much pressure and stress on me. Anyone could have spoke to me and I could have explained but without talking, treating someone like criminal is not good. (Please talk to [redacted) . I even did not get any apology from them.”

I note the following reply from the Respondent a few hours later:

“You are off duty on the 29th of November. I have no idea what you are referring to in relation to your phone being hacked or what that has to do with [Respondent]. Can you explain in full detail the issue and it will be investigated if required”

The Complainant responds as follows:

“Thanks a lot for your email. I passed my driving licensee and will be available to work more if needed. I am just waiting to purchase the car. Please leave that complaint as I think someone hacked my phone but I am buying new phone and hope all will be good. I am very happyon work and home.”

I note an email from the Complainant where he sets out his shift requirements as follows on 09 April 2022 as follows:

Hope you both are good and safe. As I requested to [redacted] on phone, I would like to request for only day shifts and proper breaks in my shifts. Please check my roster properly and you will see I am not getting proper breaks as I need at least rest of 11 hours for another shift. I am feeling very tired and my mind is not working properly as I am doing night shifts as well as day shifts. I am not able to sleep properly. I am a hard worker and happy to work hard but this is not the way a person should work. Working as a security officer I have many duties but if I will be working like this I will not be able to complete my duties properly. I am going to different places day and night and everyone is tring to train me on their site but I am not able to get all in my head as I should be train on 1 site and can work properly. I am really sorry I am sending this email but really I can not understand what's happening as I do not have time to think which I am doing right now is sleep , travel, work and again sleep , travel, work. Please understand and give me a proper site where you want me to work, so I will be able to work properly. I am really sorry for the email and I am really grateful for your help and support.”

The Respondent replied as follows:

“Many thanks for your mail and thank you for letting us know you are finding things difficult as we can come up with a solution. We will review the roster tomorrow morning and we will arrange a suitable roster for you. I can’t seem to see on your roster where you are not getting the required 11- hour break between shifts however, could you let me know when this happened so I can review with the team? Have a nice evening and I will chat to you tomorrow.”

I note a recurring theme in the Complainant’s broad ranging evidence was that he had asked many times to be removed from the current site and they (the Respondent) wouldn’t remove him.  The Complainant submits he was offered Port Laoise by the Respondent which is denied.  The Respondent submits the Complainant was offered Airside and Ballycoolin.     

I note the following email thread:

5 March 2025 from Complainant to Respondent as follows:

Hope you are doing well. I would like to work like everyone else work means random roster not only weekend. Everyone else gets 4 days a week ( Irish and European). I would also like to work minimum 4 days a week as well. I requested you a lot of times to change my site but you keep putting my roster for [redacted]. Please give me other site options as well. I called you a lot of times to talk but you never call back. Please change my roster to random roster and 4 days a week minimum.

5 March 2025 reply from the Respondent to the Complainant as follows:

I hope this message finds you well. Regarding your roster, please note that you are scheduled to work every weekend as per your initial request. This arrangement was made based on your previouscommunication, where you indicated that working 3 to 4 consecutive days would allow you to remain in Dublin for that duration, making transportation more convenient given your relocation outside of the county. To clarify, your weekend shifts are in place at your own request. With reference to your mention of Irish and European nationalities, I would appreciate if you could elaborate on this matter, as it does not pertain to the on-site roster or operational procedures. I understand you tried to reach me by phone yesterday; however, I was in a meeting at the time. I was awaiting your Fit to Return to Work Certificate, which was received after office hours last night. Additionally, there is a recruitment need at [redacted] located in Airside Retail Park. If you are interested in this opportunity, please let me know, and I can arrange the necessary training. Regarding your current assignment at [redacted] you have previously expressed your intention to remain there. However, if you have changed your mind again, please inform me, and I can remove you from the [redacted] contract at your request. At present, the only available alternative positions are day shifts at Airside Retail Park or night shifts in Ballycoolin. Looking forward to hearing from you.

5 March 2025 reply to the above from Complainant as follows:

Thanks a lot for your email. Those two sites are far away for me. I will stay in [redacted] till you have any other good and nearby site for me. Please give me consecutive days but not every weekend. Please get me the 4th shift somewhere else as well.

In an email of 22 March 2025, the Complainant submitted a number of complaints to the Respondent included among which were that he wasn’t getting proper rest breaks or being rostered for bank holidays and that his data was shared and his phone was tapped.  The Complainant stated he would be making a complaint to the Data Protection Commissioner, to the Gardai and to the Workplace Relations Commission. 

I note that following on from this email an investigation meeting took place with the Complainant on 01 April 2025.  Following on from this meeting the Respondent made a referral to Occupational Health for the Complainant as the Respondent was concerned about his stress level and his wellbeing.  The Occupational Health assessment was undertaken on 10 April 2025.          

Finally, while I appreciate that the Complainant at times had a number of concerns in relation to his employment which included alleged changes to his treatment in the workplace by the Respondent and while I accept that he had ongoing stress and anxiety in relation to those concerns and to concerns he had about extraneous matters as set out in his many emails both to his employer, to the Data Protection Commissioner, to the Minister for Justice and to the Workplace Relations Commission I conclude there is no discernible complaint under this statute as impleaded by the Complainant. 

I am satisfied the Complainant has raised matters that are not justiciable under the impleaded legislation.  The Complainant has not advanced any case which I could consider to be a breach of the impleaded legislation.    

I can find no contravention of employment rights as protected by this statute.    

In the circumstances of this matter, this particular complaint pursuant to the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 is misconceived and accordingly I find it to be not well-founded. 

CA-00070537-001 complaint pursuant to section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

For the reasons outlined above I decide this complaint is not well-founded. 

CA-00070537-002 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

For the reasons outlined above I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint as presented. 

CA-00070537-003 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

For the reasons outlined above I decide this complaint is not well-founded. 

CA-00070537-004 complaint pursuant to section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997

For the reasons outlined above I decide this complaint is not well-founded. 

CA-00070537-005 complaint pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014

For the reasons outlined above I decide this complaint is not well-founded. 

CA-00070537-009 complaint pursuant to section 28 of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 2005

For the reasons outlined above I decide this complaint is not well-founded. 

CA-00070537-010 complaint pursuant to section 7 of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994

For the reasons outlined above I decide this complaint is not well-founded.