Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Jamie  Morris

The Career Academy International Limited

Representatives

Jason Murray BL instructed by Feidhlim Mac Róibín McInnes Dunne Murphy 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-00075678-001

23/09/2025

The Complainant’s case was that he made protected disclosures about serious misconduct within the Respondent, including misleading marketing and sales practices, employment law breaches, and bullying and discrimination by senior management. He contended that, as a result, he was subjected to retaliation in the form of legal and criminal threats across multiple jurisdictions, financial detriment through withheld sales and commissions, and adverse actions against an associated contractor, notwithstanding the existence of a prior “fresh slate” agreement.

The Complainant stated that he made a protected disclosure concerning serious misconduct within the Respondent. He asserted that the disclosure related to a combination of misleading marketing and sales practices, employment law breaches, and discriminatory and bullying behaviour by senior management.

The Complainant alleged that he became aware of systemic misconduct while performing his role, including practices he described as deceptive enrolment tactics, false claims regarding graduate employment outcomes and recruitment partnerships, manipulation of sales and commission data, and tolerance of bullying and harassment by senior managers. He asserted that these matters were not isolated incidents but reflected an organisational culture driven by revenue at the expense of legal compliance and ethical standards.

According to the Complainant, after he raised internal complaints and subsequently made a formal protected disclosure, he was subjected to retaliation. He alleged that the Respondent, through senior leadership and legal representatives, sought to intimidate him using legal threats in multiple jurisdictions. In particular, he claimed that criminal allegations were raised or threatened in both Thailand and the United Kingdom, and that the use of potential police involvement in Thailand exposed him to the risk of serious criminal penalties, including imprisonment. He contended that these threats were deployed as leverage to suppress his disclosures.

The Complainant further stated that once the Respondent’s legal advisers were informed that he was asserting whistleblower protection, further pressure was exerted, including renewed reliance on criminal allegations in more than one country.

The Complainant referred to a “Fresh Slate” (or “Clean Slate”) agreement which he stated was reached with the Respondent’s CEO following his initial complaints. He asserted that, notwithstanding this agreement, further retaliatory actions occurred. These allegedly included the termination of another contractor whom the Complainant described as a friend, which he claimed was done without warning and solely because of that individual’s association with him. He contended that this action caused him distress and constituted indirect retaliation.

He further alleged that the Respondent failed to honour the agreement by not transferring sales as agreed, which he claimed resulted in the withholding of money due to him. He disputed the Respondent’s position that he had breached the agreement first, stating instead that he considered the agreement to have been breached by the Respondent, and that he therefore continued to pursue his complaints after receiving the agreed payment.

In addition, the Complainant alleged ongoing monitoring and interference with his personal work device following the referral of his disclosure by the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner to the WRC. He maintained that this conduct formed part of a broader pattern of surveillance, intimidation, and penalisation after he raised concerns.

The Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the complaint brought by the Complainant. The Respondent asserted that the WRC lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint and that, in any event, the proceedings were vexatious and constituted an abuse of process. The Respondent sought dismissal of the complaint at a preliminary stage.

The Complainant was a UK national who was engaged by the Respondent under a consulting agreement dated 1 May 2024. The agreement, which was governed by Irish law, expressly provided for a self‑employed consultancy arrangement. The Complainant invoiced for his services and bore responsibility for his own tax affairs. At all material times, he worked remotely from Thailand. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant was never an employee and did not fall within any of the extended statutory categories of “worker” under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (as amended). The Respondent also highlighted that, even if the Complainant was deemed to be an employee (which was denied), Irish employment protection legislation would not apply, as the Complainant neither lived nor worked in Ireland and the legislation did not have extraterritorial effect.

The Respondent denied the allegations of penalisation in full. They stated that the Complainant had not made a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act. In July 2025, the Complainant had made a grievance complaint concerning his managers and the allocation of sales and commission. The Respondent treated this as an interpersonal grievance rather than a disclosure of relevant wrongdoing. The grievance was addressed promptly through a formal, independent investigation involving HR and senior leadership. While one allegation was partially upheld, others were rejected, and remedial steps were taken, including the reassignment of certain sales, payment of commission, and revisions to internal procedures. The Respondent concluded that the grievance process had been completed and that the matters raised were resolved.

Following the investigation, the Complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome and began sending a series of escalating communications to senior management. Over several days in late July 2025, the Complainant issued emails—many of which the Respondent stated had been generated using artificial intelligence—containing aggressive and menacing language. These communications included threats to report the Respondent to regulators across multiple jurisdictions, references to covert recordings of staff, assertions that the Complainant held confidential company and customer data, and repeated demands that senior staff be dismissed or that the Complainant be promoted into a senior role. Central to these communications was a repeated demand for payment “in the six‑figure range” to make the matter “go away.” The Respondent characterised this conduct as oppressive and amounting to blackmail.

In an effort to de‑escalate the situation, the Respondent entered into a “Clean Slate Agreement” with the Complainant on 31 July 2025. Under this agreement, the Complainant received two weeks of paid time off and the financial benefit of sales credits, resulting in a bonus payment of AU$6,400. In return, he agreed to cease making threats of disclosure, comply with confidentiality obligations, and accept that the matters raised were closed. The Respondent maintained that it fully complied with this agreement.

Immediately after receiving the bonus payment on 20 August 2025, the Complainant renewed his complaints, raised issues concerning the internal recording of sales despite having received full financial credit, and issued fresh threats of escalation. On 21 August 2025, the Complainant unilaterally terminated his consultancy agreement. Shortly thereafter, he began contacting external regulators, starting with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and again demanded substantial financial compensation from the Respondent.

In light of renewed payment demands coupled with threats of reputational harm, the Respondent referred the matter to law enforcement authorities, taking the view that the Complainant’s conduct amounted to extortion. The Respondent then declined to engage in further correspondence with him.

Preliminary Issue – Jurisdiction

The Law:

Protected Disclosures Act 2014 – Section 12(1)

Section 12(1) of the 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.”

For the purposes of redress under Schedule 2 of the Act, section 12(7B) further provides:

“In this section and Schedule 2, references to ‘employee’ include a worker referred to in paragraphs (d), (g) and (h) of the definition of ‘worker’ in section 3(1).”

The definition of “employee” for the purposes of the Protected Disclosures Act is expressly linked to the definition of employee under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 – Section 2(3)

Section 2(3) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 provides the relevant territorial limitation:

“This Act shall not apply in relation to the dismissal of an employee who, under the relevant contract of employment, ordinarily worked outside the State unless— (a) he was ordinarily resident in the State during the term of the contract, or (b) he was domiciled in the State during the term of the contract, and the employer— (i) in the case of an individual, was ordinarily resident in the State, or (ii) in the case of a body corporate, had its principal place of business in the State.”

Employees who fall outside this provision are expressly excluded from the scope of the Unfair Dismissals Acts.

Application of the Law to the Facts

The Complainant accepted at the WRC hearing that he never worked in Ireland during the course of his engagement with the Respondent and did not assert that he was ordinarily resident or domiciled in Ireland.

As section 12 of the Protected Disclosures Act applies only to an “employee” (as extended in limited respects by section 12(7B)), and as that definition is linked to the Unfair Dismissals Act, the territorial limitation contained in section 2(3) of the 1977 Act, as set out above, applied directly to this complaint.

While I recognise that section 5(4) of the Protected Disclosures Act provides that:

“It is immaterial whether a relevant wrongdoing occurred, occurs or would occur in the State or elsewhere…”

that provision concerns the location of the alleged wrongdoing, not the territorial reach of Irish employment legislation or the jurisdiction of the Workplace Relations Commission in respect of penalisation complaints.

Considering all of the foregoing, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint for the reasons set out above.