Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Khaled  Fouda

Teleperformance Ireland Limited

Representatives

Emily Maverley

IBEC

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-00071975-001

29/05/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that the proceedings constitute the administration of Justice. It was therefore open to members of the public to attend this hearing.

In line with the coming into effect of the Workplace Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2021 on the 29th of July 2021, I can confirm that the witnesses herein were required to give their evidence on oath or affirmation. This was done in anticipation of the fact that there may have been a serious and direct conflict in evidence between the parties to the complaint. It is noted that the giving of false statement or evidence is an offence.

The specific details of the complaint are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 29th of May 2025. In general terms, I will therefore be looking at issues that have arisen in the six-month period directly preceding this date.

At the completion of the hearing, I did take the time to carefully review all the oral evidence together with the written submissions made by the parties. I have noted the respective position of the parties.  I am not required to provide a line-by-line assessment of all the evidence and submissions that I have considered. Any matter not specifically addressed is deemed superfluous to the main findings.  I am guided by the reasoning in Faulkner v. The Minister for Industry and Commerce [1997] E.L.R. 107 where it was held that a

“…minute analysis or reasons are not required to be given by administrative tribunals...the duty on administrative tribunals to give reasons in their decisions is not a particularly onerous one.  Only broad reasons need be given…”. 

The Complainant was not represented and made his own case. When it came time to hear the Complainant’s evidence, the Complainant agreed to swear make an Affirmation to tell the truth. The Complainant brought a witness to provide evidence in support of his case. I was provided with a comprehensive submission date. No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making his case. The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondent’s Representative.

The Complainant alleges that he was penalised for having made a protected disclosure.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operated with particular emphasis on the burden of proof which had to be attained by the Complainant in the first instance. The Complainant must establish facts which tend to disclose that there is a reasonable cause of action or that there appears to have been a contravention of a Statute or Statutes.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute. 

The Respondent was represented by the business representative group known as IBEC. The Respondent provided me with a written submission. I have additionally heard from a number of witnesses for the Respondent entity. No objection was raised in connection with any of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Respondent in the course of making its case. All evidence was heard following an Affirmation.  The Respondent witnesses questioned by the Complainant.

The Respondent rejects that there has been a penalisation and asserts that the Complainant was disciplined as appropriate.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

The Complainant has undoubtedly made a protected disclosure. This happened in and around March of 2025 and was made to the Data Protection Commissioner and involved the way in which Data was being handled by the Respondent/Employer company together with their largest client (a company I shall hereinafter refer to as Anon). The Complainant asserts that the Respondent and Anon operated contrary to Data Protection Regulations applicable across Europe.

It is noted that the Data Commissioners confirmed receipt of the Complainant’s communication and advised that they accepted the status of the communication as a protected disclosure and would deal with same in due course.

The Complainant had not been particularly happy in this workplace since the original Employer M had been taken over by the Respondent - Teleperformance Limited. He felt that standards were dropping and that an inertia was present amongst a newer and far less skilled workforce. Critically, he says mistakes were being made at a rate hitherto unseen and he says that this was directly as a result of the lack of good Management, and the implementation of a swingeing cost cutting programme of redundancy and re-deployment leading to inadequate support.

The Complainant says he raised these issues all the time with the Operations Manager Mr. S though Mr. S in his evidence does not recall anything other than one or two fairly benign interactions about how things were going in the workplace.

On the 21st of May 2025 there was an incident. The Employer says it was serious incident whilst the Complainant has tried to downplay it, and has characterised the Respondent’s reaction as an overreaction and an attempt to put manners on the Complainant

In any event, the Complainant was on a phone call at his desk in the office which seems to have been situate in an open plan office. The Complainant was discussing some issues with a Quality Analyst in Poland. The individual in question was critical of the Complainant’s work and in a way was reprimanding him, or so it seemed to the Complainant. The Complainant accepts that voices were raised before he eventually had to hang up. The Complainant’s support witness Ms L (the Complainant’s Line Manager) gave evidence on the second day of hearing and confirmed in her evidence that the Complainant had never really adapted to the concept of being managed from Poland. Ms. L said it was one the consequences of covid that different offices across different countries were expected to operate in a more blended way. The pre-Covid infrastructure of stand-alone autonomous offices in each country was over. The point is, as noted, that the Complainant resented being managed by someone in Poland

Others in the office, colleagues of the Complainant (all of whom made written statements) heard this one-sided argument and were shocked at the level of anger and fury being vented by the Complainant. Even after the phone call had been terminated, the Complainant seemingly continued to rant and rave. One colleague VB came under a lot of pressure when she approached the Complainant to try and calm him down or move him out. This was clearly an uncomfortable situation for her.

When the Operations Manager RS entered the room (drawn thereto it seems by the level of noise) he says he observed the Complainant pointing at VB in what he perceived to be a threatening and overbearing manner. RS says he understood the Complainant to shout something like you don’t tell me what to do, I will leave here and that’s it and then the Complainant was on his way out of the door. The Operations Manager opted to get security back-up, and I understand that this step was seen by the Complainant as something of an over-reaction. The Complainant felt it was inflammatory and in evidence he said more than once that this was RS actively seeking to vilify the Complainant – a person who (the Complainant suggests) RS perceived to be a workplace agitator and a person who had made a protected disclosure putting the company into a bad light.  

In any event, RS sought back up in the form of a security guard and went in search of the Complainant to send him home. Mr. RS specifically said that he had looked around the room and had seen colleagues visibly shaken by the argument that had erupted. As noted, I have read the contemporaneous statements made and, on balance, I accept that the decision to send the Complainant home was more for the benefit of those that would be staying on in the workplace for the rest of the day. I understand that the Complainant believes that the act of sending him home was disproportionate to what had happened but having heard the evidence I don’t think that the Complainant gave any consideration to anybody else in the workplace who would have been shocked and distressed with the suddenness of what had just happened. The Complainant did not have the necessary insight into the impact his actions had.

It was in these circumstances that a security guard (in the company of RS) ended up escorting the Complainant off the premises. This was followed up with a letter of paid suspension pending an outcome of the investigation into the workplace incident scene, which was from the outset, being characterised as a Gross Misconduct.

The Complainant lodged a workplace relations complaint form on the 29th of May 2025 asserting he had been penalised or threatened with penalisation for having made a protected disclosure.

I understand that the subsequent investigation gave rise to a disciplinary sanction of a written warning. The employment was not terminated and ultimately the Complainant could have returned to this workplace.

The Complainant is adamant that the steps taken by RS on the 21st of May 2025 were so wildly disproportionate to what had happened that it is clear that there was an alternative motive which, the Complainant asserts was the need to penalise the Complainant for having made a protected disclosure.

The Complainant is adamant and so stated in his evidence, that RS and indeed VB knew that the Complainant had made a protected disclosure concerning worrisome workplace practices. The Complainant says it was widely known. He is further in effect making the case that the steps taken amounted to vindictive penalisation of him for having made the PD.

The difficulty for the Complainant is that the fact although it is accepted that protected disclosure was made, this fact was not widely known. Witnesses for the Respondent were equally adamant that the fact of a protected disclosure having been made were unknown to them (both RS and the Human Resource Business Partner spoke to this). It was unknown to them on the 21st of May 2025 when the incident took place and was unknown to them thereafter, they say. I have been reminded by the Respondent representative that I cannot, in any event, consider any decisions made or actions taken after the 29th of May 2025 which was the day that the Complainant issued his workplace relations complaint form. I cannot therefore consider the outcome of the investigation process nor the investigation itself for the purposes of this claim as those events had not yet happened by the time the complaint form was lodged.

I allowed the Complainant an opportunity of bringing a witness or two to bolster his case that the fact of a protected disclosure having been made was widely known In the workplace. I heard the evidence of the Complainant’s line Manager Ms L. I felt her evidence was very fair and she confirmed that she knew the Complainant had threatened to bring a protected disclosure and also bring the Employer before the WRC, but she had not heard the Complainant say or confirm that he had positively done either of these things.

The Respondent evidence is that the fact that there may or may not have been a protected disclosure made by the Complainant was only known or knowable on the 29th of May 2025 when the Complainant himself referenced it in his complaint form as part of his allegation of penalisation.

In fact, the evidence is that the Data Commissioners only communicated with the Respondent concerning this protected disclosure having been made in the July of 2025. At that time the Data Commissioners referenced a protected disclosure that had been made anonymously.

On balance I find the Respondent (and notably RS’s) position – that it knew nothing of a Protected disclosure to be compelling. This is despite the fact that the Complainant is adamant that everyone knew he was going to make on and/or had made one. He is confident that Mr. S would have known.

I have given the Complainant an opportunity to find a witness to bolster his case. I did this in circumstances where the range of persons before him was 8 to 1 and I wanted to give him some opportunity to bring corroborative evidence before me. The Respondent was aware of my actions.

I am finding that the Complainant was subjected to an investigation and a disciplinary process as a direct result of the way he behaved in the workplace on the 21st of May 2025. I am further finding that the removal of the Complainant, at the direction of RS, from the building might have been heavy handed but was within the range of actions a good and reasonable manager might be expected to take in the circumstances. There is no linkage between the removal of the Complainant following the incident and a protected disclosure that had previously made and which was unknow to the staff.

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

CA-00071975-001 – The complaint herein is not well founded and fails