The Cork Circuit Court refused interim relief to a former Marymount University Hospital and Hospice employee who said he was dismissed for making protected disclosures. The court’s decision concerned an interim application; it did not determine the underlying unfair dismissal proceedings before the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
The applicant began work on 6 May 2014 under a five-year fixed-term contract. The respondent said it dismissed him because of significant interpersonal difficulties, particularly with members of its executive team. It notified him on 2 December 2014 that his contract would end. His employment ended on 2 February 2015, after he had been on sick leave since 12 December. He had seven months’ service and received three months’ pay in lieu of notice.
The applicant claimed his dismissal resulted from protected disclosures and sought reinstatement in the Tribunal proceedings. In the Circuit Court, he asked for interim relief that would continue his employment contract until those proceedings were decided.
The judgment set out the statutory framework, including a presumption that a disclosure is protected until the contrary is proved. It said the respondent accepted that the burden of rebutting that presumption rested with it. If the disclosures were protected, the applicant would then have to show substantial grounds for contending that his dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from making them.
The court considered the allegations in a disclosure document sent to the hospice board on 7 January 2015. They concerned the use of charitable funds, building safety and financial management. The applicant alleged that donations were used for purposes beyond palliative care and raised concerns about fundraising transparency. The court rejected the funding allegation on the evidence, finding the spending was not contrary to charity legislation. It also referred to evidence from a palliative-care consultant about the foundation’s handling of donations and bequests.
On building safety, the applicant cited possible Legionnaires’ contamination, a water leak on 14 September 2014, and a ceiling collapse at the main entrance on 2 August 2014. The court said the evidence in cross-examination contradicted his description of patients being evacuated during the water leak, and called that description alarmist. It also noted concerns about the ceiling repair delay and maintenance, while recording that the building had passed two HIQUA registrations since opening in 2011.
The financial concerns included a missing original building contract, alleged cost overruns and budget weaknesses. The respondent’s witnesses said loss recovery efforts were under way, but the judgment noted that no financial detail had been tendered to support the competing assertions. It also recorded the applicant’s criticism of funding for a nursing PhD course alongside his acceptance of funding for a corporate governance course.
The court said the application was for interim relief akin to an injunction. Although it accepted the applicant’s sincerity, it found that objectively he had not satisfied the court that his beliefs and disclosures were reasonable. It therefore refused interim relief.