Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Maja  Goertz

 Educatly Ltd

Representatives

  In person

 Did not attend

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00073804-001

27/07/2025

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

CA-00073804-003

27/07/2025

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00073804-004

27/07/2025

The complainant was employed by the respondent as an account executive from 9th January 2025 until 22nd July 2025. The issue that gave rise to the complaints is that it was proposed to the complainant that her salary would be reduced by 60% in July 2025 and when she raised her disagreement with this proposal, the employment relationship ended. The complainant also raised concerns in relation to the payment of her salary throughout her employment in respect of  taxation issues relating to same.

Respondent’s non-attendance at adjudication hearings.

The respondent was notified of the initial adjudication hearing date to both its Dublin address and to the address in Egypt where the respondent principal resides. The respondent did not attend the initial hearing on 12th February 2026 and did not attend the reconvened hearing that took place on 12th May 2026.

Other complaints

The complainant has also submitted other complaints to the WRC in relation to minimum notice, annual leave entitlements and a complaint under the National Minimum Wage Act, 2000. (ADJ-00066591) Those complaints will be heard separately as at the date of the adjudication hearing on 12th May 2026, they had not yet been assigned.

CA-00073804-001 – Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The complainant represented herself at the adjudication hearing and addressed her complaints by way of written and oral submissions. The complainant outlined that she was employed as an account executive from January 2025 until July 2025. The complainant resides in Spain and was working remotely for an Irish Company. The complainant stated that she was notified of a proposed pay reduction in July 2025 which would have had the effect of reducing her base salary by 60% and her fixed salary by 40% as well as the salaries of her co-workers. The complainant stated that she was dissatisfied with the proposed pay reduction and attempted to engage with respondent in respect of the issue.

 The complainant stated that she had also raised the issue of the taxation of her salary with the respondent repeatedly as she was unhappy with its instruction to her that she did not have to pay any income tax and that her salary would be paid to her without statutory deductions such as PAYE and PRSI. Despite being reassured that she did not have to pay tax, the complainant stated that she questioned the legality of this situation as she had been told she was employed on an irish employment contract. The issue of the non-taxation of her salary was a huge concern to the complainant, and she sought clarity on this as she was aware of the deductions that she should pay when employed on an irish employment contract.

The complainant stated that the proposed salary reduction would have resulted in her being paid far less than the national minimum wage. The complainant was also dissatisfied with the arbitrary nature of the reduction and the fact that she had no opportunity to discuss changes to her contractual rate of pay. The taxation issue was also a cause of great concern, and the complainant was not satisfied that she had been repeatedly told that she would be paid a net amount without deductions in respect of income tax and pay related social insurance (PRSI).

The complainant stated that she raised these issues as protected disclosures given that the proposed pay reduction and taxation issues were, in her view, relevant wrongdoings in contravention of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014.

The complainant stated that as soon as she raised these issues, she was accused of “extreme behaviour” and was told that she should resign as her actions did not align with the organisation’s values. When the complainant declined to resign as suggested, she was locked out of the computer system within an hour and was unable to attend to online meetings she had arranged. The complainant also stated that the respondent asked her to sign a waiver in respect of her employment rights, which she refused to do.

The complainant concluded her submission by stating that her dismissal was a retaliatory act for having raised the issues with respondent and constitutes penalisation within the meaning of the legislation. The complainant’s position is that she had repeatedly raised the taxation issue with her employer and was then informed of a substantial reduction in pay. When she raised this with the employer, she was prevented from accessing her work computer system and her employment was terminated on or about 23rd July 2025.

The complainant contends that her dismissal was an act of penalisation because of raising the protected disclosures with the employer. The complainant is seeking compensation in relation to her complaint.

CA-00073804-003 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

This complaint alleges that the complainant did not receive written notification of the changes to her terms and conditions of employment in July 2025 when a 60% pay reduction was proposed.

CA-00073804-004 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

This complaint addresses the proposal to reduce the complainant’s salary by 60% that was communicated to her in July 2025. The complainant immediately voiced her concerns in respect of the proposed pay reduction and the employment relationship ended almost immediately after the complainant objected and the respondent stated that it had lost trust in the complainant and the employment relationship could not continue.

The respondent did not attend the adjudication hearing and was not represented.

CA-00073804-001 – Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

The complainant is claiming that she was dismissed as an act of penalisation for raising a protected disclosure. While there is an element of personal grievance relating to unilateral reductions in pay, and the proposed level of earnings being less than the National Minimum Wage if implemented, there is also the wider issue of the respondent not complying with the Irish taxation system and informing an employee who is employed on an irish employment contract that there is no requirement to pay income tax or PRSI and that she will receive a net salary without deductions. The complainant’s position is that all these issues were raised by her, and she was dismissed as an act of penalisation for raising same.

The Applicable Law

Section 5 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 states as follows:

5. (1) For the purposes of this Act “protected disclosure” means, subject to subsection (6)] and sections 17 and 18, a disclosure of relevant information (whether before or after the date of the passing of this Act) 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.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) it is immaterial whether a relevant wrongdoing occurred, occurs or would occur in the State or elsewhere and whether the law applying to it is that of the State or that of any other country or territory.

(5) 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.

(5A) 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.

(6) A disclosure of information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings is not a protected disclosure if it is made by a person to whom the information was disclosed in the course of obtaining legal advice.

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

(7A) […]

(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 12 of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014 states as follows:

12 (1) 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.

Conclusion

Having considered the matter and particularly in relation to the taxation of the complainant’s salary, and her repeated attempts to get clarity on the issue from the respondent, I am satisfied that this constitutes a protected disclosure within the meaning of Section 5(3)(b) of the legislation. I am also satisfied that the way the complainant was treated by way of an immediate dismissal for raising these issues including the unlawful pay reduction, was an act of penalisation in contravention of the Act.

CA-00073804-003 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

The complaint relates to the proposed changes to the complainant’s earnings levels and her disagreement with same. I note that the proposed changes to the complainant were outlined in an email from the respondent although the changes never took place because once the complainant voiced her concerns, she was locked out of the respondent’s computer system and her employment was terminated. For this complaint to succeed, the changes would firstly have to take place without notification. As the changes did not take place, this complaint cannot succeed.

CA-00073804-004 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

The complaint relates to a proposed reduction in pay that the complainant objected to. The complainant was dismissed before the reduction in pay was implemented. The complainant’s dismissal is addressed in CA - 00073804-001. As the reduction in pay was a proposal and had not taken effect at the time of the complainant’s dismissal, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00073804-003 – Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

For the reasons stated above, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00073804-004 – Payment of Wages Act, 1991.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the complaint is not well founded.

CA-00073804-001 – Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

For the reasons stated above, I find that the complaint is well founded. The respondent is directed to pay the complainant €10,000.00 in compensation.

Protected Disclosure, penalisation, terms of employment, payment of wages