AIB v James Murphy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 08 February 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 2 JIEC 0801
• Docket Number: ADJ-00005011 CA-00007010-001,DETERMINATION NO.PDD181,FULL RECOMMENDATION
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Date: 08 February 2018

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PD/17/8

DETERMINATION NO.PDD181

ADJ-00005011 CA-00007010-001

PARTIES:

AIB

and

James Murphy

DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell

Employer Member: Ms Doyle

Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SECTION 12 (2), PROTECTED DISCLOSURES ACT, 2014

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-000005011 CA-000007010-001

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 13 November 2017. A Labour Court hearing took place on 19 January 2018. The following is the Court's Determination:

DETERMINATION:

3 This is an appeal by James Murphy (Complainant) against decision ADJ-00005011 of an Adjudication Officer in his complaint against his employer AIB (the Respondent). The complaint was made pursuant to the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (the Act). The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was not filed within the prescribed time limits as outlined in Schedule 2 of section 12(6) and (7) of the Act

Background

4 The Complainant is a long-term employee of the Respondent. it is the Complainant's case that he has been victimised by the respondent for making protected disclosures. The Complainant lodged his claim with the WRC on the 14 ^th September 2016. The Court decided to deal with the issue of time-limits as a preliminary issue. In Accordance with the Act the cognisable period is therefore 15 ^th March 2016 – 14 ^th September 2016. It falls to the Complainant in the first instance to identify a protected disclosure as defined in the Act within that period.

Complainant's case

5 The Complainant identified a number of issues which he believed met the criteria of a protected disclosure over a prolonged period from 2006 to 2016 when he lodged his complaint. The issues identified related to minutes of a meeting and bullying and harassment in 2011, an alleged assault in 2015 an issue in 2006 following an article in a newspaper an attack on his good character and intimidation at a meeting in July 2016. The detriment he identified that he suffered related to the decline of his credit card, performance review downgraded, defamation, isolated in the workplace.

Respondent's case

6 The Respondent has engaged in good faith with the complainant over a number of years to try and understand his issues and resolved them. They have been unsuccessful in this endeavour. The issues the Complainant raises are not protected disclosures as identified by the Act and even...