Mountrath Amalgamated Cep Ltd v Colm Mc Namee

JurisdictionIreland
CourtLabour Court (Ireland)
Judgment Date16 Jan 2020
Judgment citation (vLex)[2020] 1 JIEC 1611
Docket NumberFULL RECOMMENDATION DETERMINATION NO.PDD202 ADJ-00011006 CA-00016556-002

Labour Court

FULL RECOMMENDATION

PD/18/10

DETERMINATION NO.PDD202

ADJ-00011006 CA-00016556-002

PARTIES:
Mountrath Amalgamated Cep Ltd
and
Colm Mc Namee
DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell

Employer Member: Ms Connolly

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SECTION 12 (2), PROTECTED DISCLOSURES ACT, 2014

SUBJECT:
1

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No ADJ-00011006.

BACKGROUND:
2

2. The Complainant appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 16 October 2018. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27 November 2019. The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:
3

This is an appeal by Mr Colm McNamee against the decision ADJ-00011006 of an Adjudication Officer in a claim of penalisation for making a protected disclosure. The complaint was made pursuant to the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

4

The Adjudication Office held that the complaint was not well-founded.

5

In line with the normal practice of the Court, the parties are referred to in this Determination as they were at first instance. Hence, Mr McNamee is referred to as the Complainant and Mountrath Amalgamated CEP Company is referred to as the Respondent.

Background
6

The Complainant was employed with the Respondent as a Community Employment Scheme Supervisor from June 2006. His employment terminated on the 12th October 2017. It is his complaint that he was penalised for making a protected disclosure. The Complainant lodged his claim with the WRC on the 30th December 2017. The cognisable period for the purpose of the Act therefore is 1st July 2017 to the 30th December 2017.

Complainant's case
7

It is the Complainants submission that he made a protected disclosure at a board meeting in June 2016 and that he was penalised on the 12th October 2017 when his employment terminated and the Respondent did not pay him in respect of his outstanding annual leave.

Respondent's case
8

The Respondent disputes that the Complainant made a disclosure of any kind at the Board meeting in June. The Respondent drew the Court's attention to the minutes of that meeting. The Respondent also disputed not paying for outstanding annual leave. There was some confusion over his entitlement to annual leave but this was in no way linked to his alleged protected disclosure. A WRC inspection had identified that additional payments were due to the Complainant, in respect of annual leave when he was on sick leave and those payments have now been made.

Discussion
9

As this Court...

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