The High Court has dismissed an appeal by a civil servant who argued that disciplinary action against him was penalisation for making protected disclosures.
Mr Justice Meenan ruled on 25 February 2020 that the Labour Court had evidence to support its findings and had correctly interpreted and applied the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. The High Court appeal was confined to points of law; it was not a full rehearing, and the court could not substitute its own decision for the Labour Court’s.
The appellant, a Higher Executive Officer and finance section manager in the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, had received a final written warning following a disciplinary process. The allegations in a June 2017 letter concerned disruptive behaviour, failure to follow reasonable management instructions, and inappropriate conduct towards colleagues. The warning directed him to behave appropriately, treat co-workers with dignity and respect, and comply with reasonable management instructions. His internal appeal and a later appeal to an external appeals officer were unsuccessful.
The appellant accepted that he had made protected disclosures. He complained to the Workplace Relations Commission that the disciplinary process penalised him for doing so. An adjudication officer rejected the complaint, and the Labour Court, hearing the appeal afresh, also found the claims were not well founded. The cognisable period before the Labour Court ran from 21 April to 20 October 2017 because no application had been made to extend the time limit.
The Labour Court heard evidence from the author of the disciplinary letter, who said its contents were the sole basis for starting the disciplinary process. It found that the issue was the appellant’s widespread emailing of colleagues and external parties, rather than the content of the emails. The Labour Court also found that repeatedly communicating matters to a wide range of people did not make those communications protected disclosures where earlier disclosures of the same matters had already qualified for protection.
The High Court found that the Labour Court had considered the appellant’s submissions and the relevant law, and that its findings were supported by evidence. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the Labour Court’s determination undisturbed.