Minister Jobs Enterprise & Innovation (Represented by Cathy Smith B.L. Instructed by Chief State Solicitor's Office) v George Mc Loughlin

JurisdictionIreland
CourtLabour Court (Ireland)
Judgment Date12 February 2020
Judgment citation (vLex)[2020] 2 JIEC 1225
Docket NumberFULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.PDD204 ADJ-00021090 CA-0026918-001

Labour Court

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PD/19/4

DETERMINATION NO.PDD204

ADJ-00021090 CA-0026918-001

PARTIES:
Minister Jobs Enterprise & Innovation (Represented by Cathy Smith B.L. Instructed by Chief State Solicitor's Office)
and
George Mc Loughlin
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-00021090 CA-0026918-001.

BACKGROUND:
2

2. The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 30 April 2019. 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-00021090 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 dismissed the claim as being frivolous and vexatious in accordance with section 42 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

4

The Complainant joined the civil service on the 4 th January 1999. The Complainants employment came to an end on the 8 th January 2017 by way of him reaching the mandatory retirement age of 65. The Complainant lodged his complaint with the WRC on the 10 th March 2019. The cognisable period under the Act in terms of any act of penalisation is the 11th September 2018 to the 10 th March 2019. The Complainant was not an employee during the cognisable period and the Complainant also failed to identify any penalisation as defined by the Act during that period.

5

Section 12 of the Act provides as follows:

“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”

6

As the Complainant could not identify penalisation as defined by the Act during the cognisable period his claim must fail.

7

The Court determines that the complainant is misconceived. The appeal fails. The dismissal of the claim by the Adjudication Officer is upheld.

8

The Court so Determines.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Louise O'Donnell

MK______________________

12 February 2020 Deputy Chairman

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT