Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Joshua  Wellington

PLR Worldwide Sales Limited

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

  Self

M P Guiness, BL, instructed by  DLA Piper Ireland 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-00072491-002

17/06/2025

The Complainant was employed on a series of fixed term contracts from 11/01/2023 until 13/06/2025.  He is alleging that he was penalised for making a protected disclosure.  He worked 20 hours per week.

The Respondent submits that there is no causal link between the decision not to renew the Fixed Term Contract and the raising of a relevant wrongdoing.

As Section 5(8) of the 2014 Act presumes that the disclosure made by the Complainant is a protected disclosure and the burden of proof rests with the Respondent to displace this burden, on the balance of probabilities. The Respondent’s witness, Ms Kate Mulina gave evidence.

Evidence Ms Kate Mulina:

Ms Mulina gave evidence on affirmation on behalf of the Respondent. She outlined that her role is that of HR Business Partner for Ireland and has worked for the Respondent since May 2024.  She has worked in HR for many years prior to this appointment.

Ms Mulina gave evidence that the Respondent is a technology company who makes and distributes mobile games. They have a number of platforms and Customer Service Representatives are employed to support specific platforms.  The Complainant commenced employment on a fixed-term contract in January 2023 and worked part-time for 20 hours per week.  The role of the Customer Service Representative is to respond to a player who has technical issues.  A plasyer makes contact and a  “ticket” is raised and assigned to a specific agent who deals with the issue and resolves the issue.  Ms Mulina was not involved in the recruitment of the Complainant, and she was surprised to learn that he was also working full time for another employer.  She became aware of this when she viewed the Complainant’s Linked in profile which confrmed he was working for another employer.

Ms Mulina confirmed that the Complainant’s timesheets were included in the Respondent’s submission.  She also confirmed that the times were inputted by the Complainant and given that he was working full time elsewhere she would have concerns about compliance under the Organisation of Working Time Act.

Ms Mulina gave evidence that the Complainant had a series of fixed term contracts.  The first was from 11/01/2023 to 11/07/2023; the second was from 12/07/2023 until 12/12/2023; a third contract was from 13/12/2023 to 12/12/2024 which was subsequently amended when the Complainant changed his name.  This contract was extended by agreement from 12/12/2025 up to 13/06/2025.

Ms Mulina gave evidence in relation to the Respondent’s project work and strategy.  This stated that AI instruments must be implemented.  The AI goal was to have 90% of cases done through AI and agents would only handle complex issues.  This was the strategy that was outlined in the Respondent’s vision for the company, and this would result in a reduction in the number of agents from about 10 – 15 in Ireland.

Ms Mulina also gave evidence in relation to the Respondent’s “Support People Strategy 2025” which looked at having the right structures and right people for the business and the provision of support to the people who played the games.  This involved the reorganisation of teams and the assessment of headcount needs for the Customer Support function.  This strategy clearly stated that the Respondent would look at non renewing employees on fixed term contracts whose performance was not satisfactory.  As part of the review process the number of tickets for the project the Complainant was employed for was looked at and this and from November 2024 to June 2025 there was a 50% reduction in the support workload.  As there were 13 people working on this project there was a need to review this.

Ms Mulina confirmed that she received the Complainant’s letter dated 21/02/2025 in which he outlined concerns in relation to GDPR.  This was investigated by the Respondent’s Compliance Manager.  The Respondent also took steps to ensure that the Complainant would not have to report to the manager that was the subject of his complaint.  The Complainant was informed of the planned actions to be undertaken by the Respondent on 18/03/2025 and he submitted a response to this on 26/03/2025.

Ms Mulina was asked about the Complainant’s whistleblowing, and she confirmed that this was thoroughly investigated, and the Complainant’s reporting structure was changed. Ms Mulina confirmed that while this was taking place the Respondent’s strategy was ongoing.  The downward trend in the reduction of the support workload continued and if this was not dealt with it would lead to an excessive headcount.  This was discussed in January 2025 and in April 2025 it was very clear that the downward trend was going to continue.  The Complainant’s contract was due to end on 13/06/2025 and in was informed on 16/05/2025 that his contract would not be renewed.  Ms Mulina confirmed that his was in line with the Respondent’s strategy whereby the headcount had to be examined.  The Complainant was not the only person whose fixed term contract came to an end.  From 01/10/2024 to 31/12/2025 a total of 34 people left the company.  Some of these were voluntary and others were as a result of the Respondent’s strategy being implemented.  This meant that fixed term contracts that were coming to an end were not renewed. 

Ms Mulina gave evidence that the decision not to renew the Complainant’s contract was made in April 2025.  Those who the Complainant said were recruited after he was let go had their recruitment process commence in March 2024.  These were recruited for specific projects such as Spanish speaking and Russian.  These hires were for a different project to that which the Complainant worked on.

Cross examination – Ms Mulina:

Ms Mulina was cross examined by the Complainant.  She was asked about a named employee and his role.  Ms Mulina explained that this employee worked on a cross functional basis and the reason for this was that some games were similar in their design and build and so this employee would assist.  Ms Mulina confirmed that these were ad hoc requests.  Ms Mulina was then asked about another named employee, but she confirmed that she was not aware of what this employee worked on.

Ms Mulina confirmed that she received the Complainant’s GDPR request.

Ms Mulina was asked why hiring continued if the Respondent had and AI implementation strategy in 2024 which continued in 2025.  She stated that when the strategy was developed in 2024 there were a large number of tickets generated.  Then this changed as there were less in volume and most of these had very specific issues.  The project the Complainant worked on was affected.

Ms Mulina was asked if she believed that the non-renewal of fixed term contracts was applied consistently in relation to employees who had no performance issues and she confirmed that the decision not to renew fixed term contracts was made in relation to all such contracts.  Ms Mulina was asked why the Strategy stated that the non-renewal of fixed term contracts was in relation to employees with performance issues and she stated that this was changed to become a more general strategy statement.

Evidence – the Complainant: The Complainant gave evidence on oath.  He submitted that he made a protected disclosure on 21/02/2025 and he made this in good faith.  This disclosure was investigated by the Respondent and was upheld.  It is the Complainant’s position that the person who informed him about the non-renewal of his fixed term contract, Ms A, was his interim manager.  In her role she was involved in and had oversight of the investigation into his protected disclosure.

On 16/05/2025 he was informed by Ms A that his contract would not be renewed when it would come to an end on 13/06/2025.  The Complainant believes that the proximity of this to his protected disclosure is a cause for concern for him.  There were other employees recruited at that time, and he submits that he worked across different languages, including English and German and he could have done some of those roles.  The “tickets” were not assigned based on language, rather they were assigned based on the level of spend by the customer.

The Complainant disputes the Respondent’s view that its strategy was linked to the non-renewal of his contract.  New hires were made despite this strategy and the reason for the hires was based on customer needs, such as language. 

He confirmed that he worked from Tuesday to Saturday and it was known to the Respondent from his initial hiring that he had a full-time job with another employer.  The Complainant also submits that there were never any issues with his performance, and he was never placed on a PIP.

The Complainant submits that it can be inferred from the non-renewal of his contract that his making a protected disclosure was a contributory factor.  He stated that the big question is did his protected disclosure contribute to the non-renewal of his contract.   The Respondent must produce evidence that the non-renewal was not in any way related to his protected disclosure.  He further submits that the Respondent’s strategy was amended in April 2025 after his protected disclosure was made. 

Cross Examination – the Complainant:

The Complainant was cross examined by Ms Guiness, BL,  on behalf of the Respondent.  He was asked if he was asking the Adjudication Officer to believe that the Respondent amended their strategy just to get rid of him.  He stated that it was a contributory factor.  He was asked where the evidence was that fixed-term employees cannot made a protected disclosure.  The Complainant stated that the Respondent decided not to renew his contract due to the protected disclosure he made.

The Complainant was asked where the causal link was between the non-renewal and the protected disclosure.  He stated that the overall strategy of the Respondent was the link. 

The Complainant also agreed that there was interchangeability with some team members on projects.

CA-00072491-002:  This is a complaint seeking adjudication by the workplace Relations Commission under Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014. 

It was not disputed that the Complainant made a protected disclosure on 21/02/2025.  This complaint was investigated and upheld, and an employee lost her job as a consequence of this investigation. 

Section 5(8) of the Act operates on the presumption that the disclosures made by the Complainant are protected disclosures and the burden of proof rests with the Respondent to displace this burden, on the balance of probabilities. 

The Act states:   “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”.

Section 12(7C) also presumes that the penalisation which a whistleblower alleges is connected to the protected disclosures.  Again, the burden of proof rests firmly with the Respondent to displace this presumption on the balance of probabilities.  

The Act outlines as follows:

“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 cognisable period for this complaint is from 17/12/2024 to 17/06/2025.  The complaint has been submitted within the required timeframe. The amending provisions of the Protected Disclosure Act 2014 (the “2014 Act”) commenced from 1 January 2023.  Accordingly, it is the Act as amended, Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022 (the “2022 Amendment Act”) that applies to the complaint made by the Complainant.

Protected disclosure is defined by Section 5 of the 2014 Act. In this case, the Respondent accepted that the Complainant made a protected disclosure.

What remains in dispute is the allegation the Complainant was penalised as a result of raising the protected disclosure on 21/02/2025.  The Complainant was informed by Ms A on 16/05/2025 that his contract which was scheduled to expire on 13/06/2025 would not be renewed.  It was confirmed on behalf of the Respondent that while Ms A was aware of the Complainant’s complaint she had no role in either the investigation or the decision-making process.  

The definition of penalisation was amended in Section 3 (a) (ii) of the 2022 Amendment Act:-

“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;”

The 2022 Amendment Act moved away from the “but for” penalisation test set out in O’Neill -v- Toni and Guy Blackrock Ltd [2010] 21 ELR 1. Instead, Section 21 (7) (c) of the 2022 Amendment Act, the burden of proof rests with the Respondent to the employer, and penalisation will be deemed to have been a result of the reporting person having made a protected disclosure, unless the Respondent can establish that the act or omission was justified on other grounds.

The caselaw is clear that there must be “a nexus or connection between the alleged protected disclosure and the alleged detriment suffered” Ní Raifeartaigh J, Barrett v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana [2023] IECA 112,  Ní Raifeartaigh J. referred to Jesudason v. Alder Hey Children’s Foundation Trust [2020] EWCA Civ 73 in which that court had summarised the position as follows:

“There must be a link between the protected disclosure or disclosures and the act, or failure to act, which results in the detriment”.

The protected disclosure, in this case was accepted, investigated and decisive action taken.

The Respondent’s witness gave clear evidence that decisions relating to the non-renewal of fixed term contracts was because:

         i.            The Respondent was moving to the use of AI with a consequential reduction in the number of Customer Support Representatives.

       ii.            The strategy in place was that the number of Customer Support Representatives would be reduced by 15 to 20 agents.

     iii.            The number of “Tickets” generated had significantly decreased and this further informed the business case for the decision not to renew fixed-term contracts.

     iv.            The Complainant was one of 15 employees on fixed-term contracts who were not renewed, and a total of 25 employees were let go.

There was no tangible evidence presented by the Complainant that the non-renewal of his fixed-term contract was linked to his protected disclosure.  The Court of Appeal has been clear that there must be a link between the protected disclosure and the alleged act; no evidence of such a nexus was established.

On the evidence presented, I find that the Respondent has discharged the burden in establishing that the act complained, the non-renewal of a fixed term contract, of by the Complainant was justified on other grounds.   The Complainant has asserted that his fixed term contract was not renewed as a result of having made a protected disclosure.  His evidence was that he felt that this was “a contributory factor”. On balance, I find that the Respondent has objectively justified its decision not to renew the Complainant’s fixed term contract, and the Complainant was not penalised.

Accordingly, even taking full account of the evidence presented, I am not satisfied that there is clear evidence of penalisation as a result of raising protected disclosures. No nexus has been established between the Complainant’s protected disclosure and the allegation of penalisation, i.e., the non-renewal of his fixed term contract.     

I have decided that the Complainant was not penalised as a result of having made a protected disclosure.  I have decided that this complaint is not well-founded.

Protected disclosure.  Detriment.  Burden of proof.