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

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 12 February 2020
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2020] 2 JIEC 1225
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.PDD204 ADJ-00021090 CA-0026918-001
• Date: 2020
• Year: 2020
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

PARTIES:

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

and

George Mc Loughlin

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PD/19/4

DETERMINATION NO.PDD204

ADJ-00021090 CA-0026918-001

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-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