Fingal County Council (Represented by Waters & Associates Solicitors) v John O'Brien

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 18 May 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 5 JIEC 1803
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.PDD184 ADJ-00001721 CA-00002403-001
• Date: 18 May 2018

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PD/17/2

DETERMINATION NO.PDD184

ADJ-00001721 CA-00002403-001

PARTIES:

Fingal County Council (Represented by Waters & Associates Solicitors)

and

John O'Brien

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Ms Connolly

Worker Member: Mr McCarthy

SECTION 12 (2), PROTECTED DISCLOSURES ACT, 2014

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No ADJ-00001721.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Claimant appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 12(2) of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 July 2017 and a further hearing on 19 April 2018. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

Background to the Appeal

3 This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal brought by Mr John O'Brien ('the Complainant') against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00001721, dated 11 May 2017) under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 ('the Act'). The Adjudication Officer decided that the Complainant's complaint of penalisation under the Act was not well-founded. The Complainant's Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 13 June 2017. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 21 July 2017 and 19 April 2018.

Submissions

4 The Complainant submits that he made two protected disclosures within the meaning of the Act. He submits that his first protected disclosure was made by way of a letter to the then recently-appointed Chief Executive of Fingal County Council ('the Respondent') on 14 April 2014 i.e. on a date that preceded the commencement of the Act. However, in the course of subsequent correspondence with the Respondent's Chief Executive on 18 September 2014, the Complainant indicated that he wished to have his earlier correspondence treated as a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Act. The Respondent did not demur on this at the time and Mr James Waters, Solicitor, informed the Court that the Respondent was not seeking to challenge the protected nature of the disclosure in question. The subject of the protected disclosure concerned the relationship between the Respondent, the former League of Ireland football club, Sporting Fingal, and a registered company, Sporting Fingal FC Limited and related events that had occurred in 2011. The Chief Executive carried out a review of the file and materials furnished to him by the Complainant and advised the Complainant by letter dated 19 January 2015 that he had concluded that the...