Minister for Jobs Enterprise & Innovation (Represented by Cathy Smith B.L., Instructed by the Chief State Solicitors Office) v George Mc Loughlin (Instructed by Anne Conlon B.L., Instructed by FP Logue, Solicitors)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 February 2020
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2020] 2 JIEC 1224
• Date: 12 February 2020
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.PDD203 ADJ-00011078 CA-00014642-001
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

PARTIES:

Minister for Jobs Enterprise & Innovation (Represented by Cathy Smith B.L., Instructed by the Chief State Solicitors Office)

and

George Mc Loughlin (Instructed by Anne Conlon B.L., Instructed by FP Logue, Solicitors)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PD/18/14

DETERMINATION NO.PDD203

ADJ-00011078 CA-00014642-001

Labour Court

DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SECTION 12 (2), PROTECTED DISCLOSURES ACT, 2014

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00011078 CA-00014642-001:

BACKGROUND:

2 2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 8 November 2018. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28 January 2020. The following is the Determination of the Court:-

DETERMINATION:

3 This is an appeal by George Mc Loughlin (hereafter the Complainant) against an Adjudication Officer's Decision ADJ-00011078 given under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (the Act) in a claim that he was penalised by his former employer Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (hereafter the Respondent) for making a protected disclosure. The Adjudication Officer found that the complaint was not well founded.

Background

4 The Complainant joined the civil service on the 4 ^th January 1999. In 2015 he made a protected disclosure. It is his submission that the decision by the Respondent not to grant his application for retention in the civil service beyond the age of 65 was penalisation arising from this protected disclosure and further that the decision by the Secretary General following review of that decision to uphold same by letter dated 16th January 2017 constituted penalisation. The Complainant lodged his complaint with the WRC on the 28 September 2019. Therefore, the cognisable period under the Act in terms of any act of penalisation is the 29 ^th March 2019 to the 28 ^th September 2019.

5 Preliminary issue.

6 The Respondent raised the issue that the complaint was statute barred. However, the Complainant sought an extension of time in accordance with section 41 (8) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 which requires that reasonable cause be shown in order for an extension of time to be granted.

7 The Complainant submitted that the delay in submitting the complaint arose from the fact that he was in mediation with the Respondent from January to May 2017 and he believed his retention would be considered as part of that process. It was his submission that he lodged the complaint within three months of the mediation finishing.

8 The Respondent's submission is that the fact of mediation did not prevent the Complainant from lodging his complaint...