Enterprise Ireland v Andrew Connell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 11 April 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 4 JIEC 1102
• Date: 11 April 2018
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.PDD183 ADJ-00007228 CA-00009741-001
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PD/17/9

DETERMINATION NO.PDD183

ADJ-00007228 CA-00009741-001

PARTIES:

Enterprise Ireland

and

Andrew Connell

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Ms Connolly

Worker Member: Mr McCarthy

SECTION 12 (2), PROTECTED DISCLOSURES ACT, 2014

SUBJECT:

1 1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no. ADJ-00007228.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Complainant appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court on 5 December 2017. A Labour Court hearing took place on 5 April 2018. The following is the Decision of the Court:-

DETERMINATION:

Background to the Appeal

3 This is an appeal brought by Mr Andrew Connell (‘the Complainant’) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00007228, dated 23 November 2017) under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (‘the 2014 Act’). The Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 5 December 2017. The Court heard the appeal in Cork on 5 April 2018. The Complainant appeared as a litigant in person before the Court.

Alleged Protected Disclosures

4 The Complainant submits that he made a total of three protected disclosures within the meaning of the 2004 Act to his employer, Enterprise Ireland (‘the Respondent’) and a further protected disclosure to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. The following is an outline of the matters which the Complaint submits are the protected disclosures he made:

No 1: The Complainant sent an email to the Respondent's Freedom of Information Officer on 6 June 2014 in which he expressed his view that the Respondent had not fully met his earlier freedom of information request;

No. 2: The Complainant appealed the Freedom of Information Officer's decision on 8 July 2014. In his written appeal he stated his opinion that the Respondent had failed to comply with its obligations under the relevant legislation;

No. 3: On 20 January 2016, the Complainant — in an internal company email — stated his opinion that the Respondent's purchase of an Employment Practices Liability insurance policy was a ‘prodigal use of taxpayers’ money’;

No 4: On 14 June 2016, the Complainant wrote to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. In his letter, he again made reference to the matters detailed at No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 above. He also made reference to what, in his opinion, amounted to a third relevant wrongdoing on the part of the Respondent i.e. its alleged decision to deliberately conceal information and/or documentation relevant to the subject matter of the Complainant's protected disclosures.

Alleged Penalisation

5 The Complainant submits that he suffered a detriment that amounts to penalisation within the meaning of the 2014 Act on six occasions:

Incident 1: On 3 November 2016, the Complainant was informed that he had been unsuccessful in an internal competition for promotion to the role of Senior Commercialisation Specialist;

Incident 2: In October...