Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Berk  Atakan

Cross Centra Roseberry Hill – Cross Retail Convenience Group Ltd

Representatives

None

 Lorna Campbell, HR Consultant

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00076833-002

27/10/2025

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

CA-00076833-003

27/10/2025

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

CA-00076833-004

27/10/2025

The Complainant contends he was penalised for exercising his rights under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and was penalised for having made a protected disclosure.   It is the Respondent’s case the Complainant did not invoke or give notice of an intention to exercise a right under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, and the Complainant did not make a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 and/or was not penalised.  

Oral testimony of the Complainant

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent on 4th April 2022 as a sales assistant.  He is no longer in the employment of the Respondent.  The Complainant outlined that on 4th September 2025 he was requested by the store manager to leave his mobile phone in the canteen during working time.  The Complainant did not feel it was secure to leave his mobile phone in the canteen.  The store manager then advised him to leave his phone in the safe.  The Complainant responded that he was not permitted to access the safe.  The store manager told the Complainant that if he did not leave his mobile phone in the canteen, he would send him home.  The Complainant asked if he could leave his mobile phone in his pocket and assured the manager that he would not look at it.  The manager refused this request and sent the Complainant home for the remainder of the day.   Two other employees were also sent home. 

The Complainant returned to the store sometime later that same day, together with the two other employees who had also been sent home, and they requested contact details for HR.  This was refused.  The Complainant met Mr Kearney, Retail Support Manager, outside of the store.  He  explained to Mr Kearney what had happened.   Mr Kearney told the Complainant that his shift had finished for the day and that he should go home, and he told the Complainant and the other two employees that he supported the decision of the store manager to send them home.  The Complainant asked Mr Kearney for contact details for HR as he wanted to raise a grievance about being asked to put his mobile phone in an unsafe place. 

On 7th September 2025 the Complainant had a meeting with Mr Kearney.  Mr Kearney told the Complainant that he needed to apologise to the store manager or disciplinary action would be taken against him and he would not be paid for the remainder of his shift not worked on 4th September 2025. 

On 8th September 2025 the Complainant lodged a formal grievance in relation to the events of 4th September 2025.  Within that grievance complaint he complained about the actions of the store manager and Mr Kearney.  On this same date, the Complainant received an email saying that he would be paid for the remainder of the shift not worked on 4th September 2025 and also that there would be no disciplinary action.  He was asked if he still wished to proceed with his formal grievance complaint.  The Complainant did not withdraw his formal complaint.

On 27th September 2025 the Complainant was working on tills.  The store manager had an empty plastic bag in his hand, and he hit the bag over the crisps and shouted at the Complainant to take the bag.  This happened in front of customers, and a customer who was in the queue at the tills took the bag and handed it to the Complainant.  The Complainant was also instructed by the store manager to go outside and do a recycling task.  The Complainant outlined that this was not one of his tasks.  His job was to work on tills.  However, he did do the recycling task.  The Complainant requested a copy of CCTV footage for 27th September 2025 as this footage would show the store manager shouting at him and also show that he carried out the recycling task despite initially objecting to same.  The store manager requested the Complainant to come to the office.  He questioned the Complainant on his refusal to do the recycling.  The Complainant explained to the store manager that he had initially objected to doing the task because he was working on the till.

On 30th September 2025 Mr Kearney invited the Complainant to a meeting.  The Complainant said to Mr Kearney that he had not received any notice of a meeting or any details from HR in relation to a meeting and that he did not feel safe going to a meeting because he did not know what was waiting for him.  The Complainant was told he could bring someone with him.  Mr Kearney said to the Complainant that he thought he was acting irrationally and was paranoid and that he was suspending him with pay for a week.  The Complainant outlined to the hearing that Mr Kearney was the subject of his grievance complaint and yet he had suspended him.    

Ms Campbell, HR Consultant, conducted a hearing into the Complainant’s grievance.  The Complainant was permitted to bring a witness to this meeting.  The Complainant wanted the meeting recorded.  This was refused.  A note taker was present, and minutes of the meeting were read back to the Complainant.  He was asked to sign them which he did as he agreed with what was read out to him.  However, he wanted to see the words that were written down to ensure the written words were the same as those read out.  This was refused.  He received a written copy of the minutes a few days later.

The Complainant was unhappy with the outcome of the grievance investigation.  He appealed the findings.  An appeal hearing was conducted by Mr Cross, Store Owner, on 16th October 2025.  The Complainant was permitted to bring a witness to this meeting.  He received an outcome to his appeal around 20th October 2025.  His appeal was not upheld.  The Complainant was unhappy with this and referred a complaint to the WRC on 27th October 2025.

The Complainant outlined to the hearing that he was penalised for exercising his rights under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and was penalised for having made a protected disclosure.   His grievance complaint of 8th September 2025 constitutes both his exercising of his rights under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 and the making of a protected disclosure.  The penalisation he suffered included: (i) all members of management became more disrespectful towards him after his lodged a grievance, including the store manager who shouted at him twice on 27th September 2025; (ii) he was assigned evening hours on the weekends when prior to making a grievance complaint he was mainly assigned morning hours on weekends; and (iii) on 30th September 2025 he was suspended for a week by Mr Kearney, one of the named persons in his grievance, because his behaviour was allegedly irrational.  The Complainant told the hearing that he worked for years without issue until he raised a formal complaint.

During cross‑examination, the Complainant was asked whether the two requests made by the store manager on 27th September 2025, namely, to take a bag and to do the recycling, were unreasonable. The Complainant replied that it was not the tasks themselves, but the disrespectful manner in which they were requested to be performed.  The Complainant was asked what part of his written grievance complaint on 8th September 2025 constitutes a protected disclosure within the meaning of the 2014 Act, to which the Complainant responded that although Mr Kearney was one of the subjects of his grievance, he was the one who suspended him in the days following the making of the grievance.  It was put to the Complainant that his grievance was processed in accordance with the grievance procedure, to which the Complainant agreed.  The Complainant added that he was saying management changed his hours of work after he made a grievance and that his two witnesses would confirm this in their evidence.   

Oral Testimony of Mr Jerome Hope

The witness outlined that he is an employee of the Respondent.  He outlined that the Complainant was off the majority of weekend evenings but after the Complainant raised the grievance, the Complainant was scheduled for weekend evenings even though there was other staff available to do these hours.  There was a change in the treatment of the Complainant in that there was hostility towards him by management.

In cross examination, the witness was asked if he thought the Complainant had changed.  The witness responded, “yes he is afraid to do anything wrong since September”.

The witness was asked by the Adjudication Officer to outline his work schedule and when it overlapped with the Complainant’s working hours.  The witness was asked if he could give examples of the differential treatment he referred to in his evidence.  He responded that he heard the store manager raise his voice at the Complainant on one occasion, but he did not hear what was said.  Also, one day the store manager sent the Complainant home to get his ID even though staff were not required to have their ID with them while at work.

Oral Testimony of Mr Bobby King

The witness outlined that he is an employee of the Respondent.  He outlined that the Complainant was rostered for weekend hours that he had off previously.  The witness outlined that there was “a massive change in the atmosphere” around the Complainant, and he was getting worse treatment than other staff because he made a grievance complaint.  

Ms Campbell declined the invitation to cross-examine the witness.

The witness was asked by the Adjudication Officer to outline his work schedule and when it overlapped with the Complainant’s working hours.  The witness was asked if he could give examples of the differential treatment he referred to in his evidence.  He responded that the assistant manager stopped greeting the Complainant when he arrived for his shift and that the Complainant would not get the same goodbye as other staff did.

Closing Submission

In closing, the Complainant submitted that he repeatedly requested CCTV footage for 27th September 2025 and was denied that request.  The subject of his grievance suspended him.  If he was genuinely problematic as alleged by management, it is difficult to understand how he could be employed for years without issue until he raised a grievance.

Oral testimony of Mr Mike Kearney, Retail Support Manager

On 30th September 2025 the witness asked to meet with the Complainant.  The meeting was intended to be informal and so no notice issued in relation to same.  The meeting had nothing to do with the Complainant’s grievance.  The witness felt the informal meeting was necessary in light of the general conduct of the Complainant over the preceding days and weeks.  The witness outlined that the Complainant had been acting irrationally and appeared to be paranoid.  He, the store manager and assistant store managers felt the Complainant’s behaviour had become unmanageable, which included an accusation that the store manager had shouted at the Complainant when in reality he was just asking him to put a bag behind the till, and his refusal to carry out fair instructions.  The purpose of the meeting was to suggest to the Complainant that he take a few days off with pay to cool off.  He was provided with details of the Respondent’s Employee Assistant Programme.  The meeting unfortunately did not come to a close because the Complainant stated he did not feel safe; however, he was advised he was required to take the leave because of management’s concerns.  The witness had already had an ‘Informal Counselling Meeting’ with the Complainant on 5th August 2025 because of the Complainant’s negativity towards management instructions; poor attitude towards members of management; being argumentative towards management; and poor timekeeping.  There had been no issues with the Complainant prior to this time, but his behaviour started to change in or about August 2025 and management were concerned about this.

In cross-examination, the witness was asked why he did not provide the Complainant with CCTV footage for 27th September 2025.  The witness responded that “it was missed and copied over”.  He asked why he did not get notice of the meeting on 30th November 2025.  The witness replied that it was just an informal meeting, and he felt it was necessary because there had been a change in the Complainant’s behaviour in that the Complainant’s behaviours were irrational and he appeared to be paranoid.  The witness was asked if he was trained in mental health.  The witness responded: “no, it was just my opinion”.

Oral testimony of Ms Oral Dolan, Assistant Manager

The witness outlined that she worked with the Complainant for four years.  She outlined that the Complainant refused to sit down at the meeting on 30th October 2025 as there was no CCTV or recording of the proposed meeting, even though he had been permitted to bring a witness with him.  The witness said she could not understand how he felt unsafe as he never had any issues with management previously.   The witness stated she and the other assistant manager did the rosters and there had been no change to the Complainant’s working pattern.

In cross-examination, the witness was asked what the grounds were for forming the view that he was acting irrational.  The witness responded that it was because he was refusing to be part of an informal meeting and she could see no reason for that.

Oral testimony of Ms Karolina Sapalaite, Assistant Manager

The witness outlined that she worked with the Complainant for four years and that there had been no issues with his performance or attitude prior to August 2025.  After that the atmosphere in the store changed and she felt she was walking on eggshells around him.  Anything she said or did was being repeatedly questioned.  He stopped acknowledging her and was disrespectful towards her. He repeatedly refused to carry out her instructions.  The Complainant was on a flexible contract and had been rostered to work evening shifts over weekends.  She did not change his roster in anyway.  

The Complainant declined the invitation to cross-examine the witness on her evidence.

Closing Submission

In closing, it was submitted by Ms Campbell on behalf of the Respondent that the Complainant did not make a protected disclosure.  He lodged a grievance which was duly investigated in line with the company Grievance Procedure.  The period of paid leave was intended as a cooling off period and was for reasons completely separate to the Complainant’s grievance.  The fact that he was provided with EAP details at the time of the leave demonstrates the Respondent’s intention to support the Complainant rather than penalise him.  There was no change to rosters.  The Complainant’s conduct changed in August 2025, and any action taken by management were conduct driven. The Complainant was on a flexible contract and was not guaranteed any particular shifts.  He did not raise this issue with management at any time before presenting his complaint to the WRC.   The Complainant did not invoke or give notice of an intention to exercise a right under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994, and there has been no form of penalisation of the Complainant.

CA-00076833-002 & CA-00076833-003

Relevant Law

Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 (“the 1994 Act”)

The 1994 Act obliges employers inter alia to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship.

Section 6C(1) of the 1994 Act provides that an employer must not penalise or threaten penalisation of an employee for (a) invoking any right conferred on him or her by the 1994 Act, (b) having in good faith opposed by lawful means an act that is unlawful under the 1994 Act, (c) giving evidence in any proceedings under the 1994 Act, or (d) giving notice of his or her intention to do any of the things referred to at (a) to (c).

Section 6C(2) of the 1994 Act provides that s. 6C(1) does not apply to the making of a complaint that is a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.

Section 6C(5) of the 1994 Act provides that "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.

Findings

CA-00076833-002

The Complainant outlined to the hearing that he was penalised for exercising his rights under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.   He contends his grievance complaint of 8th September 2025 constitutes his exercising of his rights under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.  It is the Respondent’s position the Complainant did not invoke or give notice of an intention to exercise a right under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.

The Complainant opened a copy of his formal written grievance to the hearing which he had emailed to HR on 8th September 2025.  His grievance reads as follows:

“I am writing to raise a formal grievance regarding recent incidents at work that I believe amount to unfair treatment and inappropriate conduct. On Thursday 4 of September 2025, I was asked to leave my mobile phone in the canteen. I explained that I did not feel comfortable doing so as it was not secure. I was then instructed to place it in the safe where money is kept, but as per my contract I am not authorised to access the safe. When I refused, I was sent home, resulting in a loss of wages for the hours I was scheduled to work. Two other colleagues were also sent home that day, but the following day staff were not required to follow the same rule. When I asked why the rule was not applied consistently, I was told that managers can change the rules at any time. I request that I am paid for the hours I lost on this shift, as I was available and willing to work. During the incident on Thursday 4 of September 2025, my store manager spoke to me in an aggressive and intimidating manner. He raised his voice, moved his hands in a threatening way, and ordered me to leave the shop while glaring at me in a manner that made me feel unsafe. This incident should be visible on the store’s CCTV footage, and I request that this footage be reviewed and preserved as evidence. Furthermore, on Thursday 4 of September 2025, after being sent home, myself and colleagues requested HR contact details from both the store manager and the area manager. The store manager refused to provide any contact details. When we spoke to the area manager outside the shop, he also did not provide any official HR contact information. Instead, he only verbally gave us an email address, without any official documentation, so I am unsure whether it is correct or valid. This has prevented me from accessing HR directly and raising a grievance through the proper channels. I request that the company provide the official contact details for the person responsible for handling grievances. I am very concerned about the impact this behaviour has had on my dignity and sense of safety at work. I believe that all staff should be treated with respect, and that policies should be applied fairly and consistently. I am raising this in line with the company’s grievance procedure and request that this matter be investigated formally. Please confirm receipt of this grievance and advise me of the next steps in the process.”

In order to avail of the protection against penalisation provided for at s. 6C(1) of the 1994 Act, the Complainant must commit a protected act within the meaning of s. 6C(1) (a) to (d) of the 1994 Act.  The Complainant contends that the making of the above grievance on 8th September 2025 was a protected act within the meaning of the 1994 Act.  I am satisfied, having reviewed the above written grievance complaint and, on the basis of the Complainant’s evidence presented to the hearing, that the Complainant did not perform a protected act within the meaning of s. 6C(1) (a) to (d) of the 1994 Act.  It therefore follows that any alleged penalisation he claims he experienced could not have arisen as a result of having performed a protected act within the meaning of the 1994 Act.  Accordingly, his complaint of penalisation within the meaning of the 1994 Act is not well-founded.

CA-00076833-003

This is a duplicate of complaint CA-00076833-002.   Accordingly, I find this complaint is also not-well founded for the same reasons as set out above.

CA-00076833-004

Relevant Law

The Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 (“the 2014 Act”)

The 2014 (as amended) provides protection against penalisation for workers who raise concerns of wrongdoing within their workplace.

Section 3(1) of the 2014 defines "penalisation" as:

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

(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”

Section 5 of the 2014 Act defines a “protected disclosure” as follows:

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

(2) For the purposes of this Act information is “relevant information” if—

(a) in the reasonable belief of the worker, it tends to show one or more relevant wrongdoings, and

(b) it came to the attention of the worker in a work-related context.

(3) The following matters are relevant wrongdoings for the purposes of this 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,

(h) that a breach has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur, or

(i) 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 or an attempt has been, is being or is likely to be made to conceal or destroy such information . . . .”

As per the long title, the 2014 Act makes provision for and in connection with the protection of persons from the taking of action against them in respect of the making of certain disclosures in the public interest and for connected purposes.  Although “in the public interest” is not defined in the 2014 Act, it is generally understood that the disclosure serves a wider interest than that of the personal or private interest of the worker making the disclosure.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Supreme Court in Baranya v. Rosderra Irish Meats Group Limited [2021] IESC 77 held that an internal grievance complaint can fall within the scope of the 2014 Act.  Hogan J. observed that s. 5(3)(d) of the 2014 Act allows a worker to present a complaint that their personal health or safety is endangered by workplace practices, thus bringing such matters within the scope of the 2014 Act.  Subsequent to that decision, the 2014 Act was amended by the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act, 2022 to include s. 5(5A), which 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 ” (emphasis added).

Section 5 of the 2014 further provides:

“(7) The motivation for making a disclosure is irrelevant to whether or not it is a protected disclosure.

(8) 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 6(1) of the 2014 Act provides:

“ A disclosure is made in the manner specified in this section if the worker makes it—(a) to the worker’s employer . . . .”

An employee need not expressly invoke the 2014 Act when making the communication in question for it to be recognised as a protected disclosure.  In Clarke v. CGI Food Services Limited and CGI Holdings Limited [2020] IEHC 368 which concerned an appeal of a Circuit Order of interim relief under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014,  Humphreys J. noted at [17]) that “[o]ne can make a protected disclosure without invoking the 2014 Act or without using the language of “protected disclosure”.  

Section 12(1) of the 2014 Act provides:

“ 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.”

A decision of an Adjudication Officer under s. 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 in relation to a complaint of a contravention of s.12(1) of the 2014 Act must do one or more of the following: (a) declare that the complaint was or, as the case may be, was not well founded, (b) require the employer to take a specified course of action, (c) subject to paragraph 2A of the 2015 Act, require the employer to pay to the employee compensation.

Findings

It is the Complainant’s case he made a protected disclosure on 8th September 2025 and was penalised because he made that protected disclosure.  It is the Respondent’s case the Complainant’s communication on 8th September 2025 was a personal grievance and does not meet the statutory  definition of a protected disclosure. 

I must first establish if a protected disclosure within the meaning of the 2014 Act was made on 8th September 2025 as claimed by the Complainant, and if I find it was, I must then examine whether penalisation within the meaning of the 2014 Act occurred for having made that protected disclosure.

I find the Respondent has successfully rebutted the presumption provided for at s. 5(8) of the 2014 Act.  I am not satisfied, for the reasons set out below, that the communication sent by the Complainant on 8th September 2025 was a protected disclosure for the purposes of the 2014 Act.

The Complainant’s Communication of 8th September 2025:

It was common case the Complainant sent a communication to HR on 8th September 2025.  The full content of that communication is set out above under the findings in CA-00076833-002, and so it is not necessary to repeat it here. 

In his email of 8th September 2025, the Complainant outlines his concerns regarding the events of 4th September 2025.  The Complainant was asked to leave his mobile phone in the canteen.  He did not want to do this as he felt the canteen was not a secure place to leave his mobile phone.  When he refused to leave his mobile phone in the canteen, he was sent home (initially) without pay.  He felt other staff were not required the next day to follow the same rule of leaving their mobile phone in the canteen and this was unfair.  He further outlines in this communication that thestoremanager spoke to him in an aggressive and intimidating manner in that he: (i) raised his voice, (ii) moved his hands in a threatening way; (iii) glared at the Complainant in a manner that made him feel unsafe, and (iv) ordered the Complainant to leave the shop.  The Complainant outlined that he was very concerned about the impact this behaviour had on his dignity and sense of safety at work. 

At the hearing the Complainant did not elect which ‘relevant wrongdoing’ under s. 5(3) of the 2014 Act he was relying on, other than to repeatedly state that the communication of 8th September 2025 was a protected disclosure.  Section 5(3) of the 2014 Act (as amended) sets out what a ‘relevant wrongdoing’ is for the purpose of the 2014 Act.  While s. 5(3)(b) provides that a breach of a legal obligation arising under an employee’s contract is expressly excluded from the scope of the 2014 Act, s. 5(3)(d) includes as a ‘relevant wrongdoing’ that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered.  However, s 5(5A) of the 2014 Act makes it clear that a matter concerning interpersonal grievances exclusively affecting the 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, do not constitute a ‘relevant wrongdoing’ for the purposes of the 2014 Act.  Instead, such matters can be dealt with through a grievance procedure.

Having carefully considered the content of the Complainant’s email of 8th September 2025, I am satisfied the information contained therein constitutes a grievance exclusively concerning the Complainant and therefore in accordance with the provisions of s. 5(5A) of the 2014 Act, it is not a ‘relevant wrongdoing’for the purposes of the 2014 Act.  As I have found the email of 8th September 2025 does not disclose a ‘relevant wrongdoing’ as defined under the 2014 Act, one of the essential components of the statutory definition of a protected disclosure is absent.  Accordingly, I find the Complainant did not make a protected disclosure within the meaning of the 2014 Act, and therefore I do not need to determine whether penalisation within the meaning of the 2014 Act has occurred.

CA-00076833-002

I decide this complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 is not well founded.

CA-00076833-003

I decide this complaint under the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994 is not well founded.

CA-00076833-004

I decide this complaint under the Protected Disclosure Act, 2014 (as amended) is not well founded.

No protected disclosure.