The High Court has dismissed an employer’s appeal against an interim order requiring it to continue a dismissed employee’s pay and benefits while his complaint is determined by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), including any appeal from that determination.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said there were likely to be substantial grounds for contending that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from the employee having made protected disclosures. He stressed that this was an assessment for the interim stay, not a final finding on the allegations or the reason for dismissal.
The employee, John Clarke, was a group financial controller. He said he raised concerns about financial matters and food safety, including the handling of frozen food products. The judgment recounts his allegation that 22 pallets of pizza intended for children had thawed and were refrozen before being sold. The employer disputed aspects of his account.
The employee also alleged financial irregularities, including improper use of company funds and problems with VAT and Revenue obligations. The judgment records the employer’s position that the complaints did not qualify as protected disclosures. The judge rejected the employer’s interpretation of the statutory test, explaining that an employee’s investigative duties alone do not exclude a matter where the alleged wrongdoing is by the employer.
The employee was suspended in April 2019 and dismissed the following month. The employer said the dismissal was due to performance issues. The judge noted that the performance concerns appeared only after the employee began raising questions. He also cited the absence of warnings, the appointment to chair the disciplinary hearing of a person who had already made adverse findings, and unanswered questions about who decided to dismiss the employee as matters supporting the argument that performance management was used to disguise another reason. The court did not finally resolve those issues.
The High Court affirmed the Circuit Court order and expressly directed the defendants to continue the employee’s contract for pay and benefits from the date of termination until the WRC claim and any appeal were finally determined. The judge said the complaints had some evidential support warranting further investigation, while making clear their merits remained for the WRC process.
The judge also directed the employee’s solicitors to send the judgment and papers to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Revenue Commissioners, so each could consider whatever investigations it considered appropriate. The direction did not determine that any alleged wrongdoing had occurred.