The Complainant, a probationary employee at the time, had emailed the company’s former CEO seeking additional time to investigate a significant loss of €33,000 from the company accounts, expressing concerns they would not pass an audit. The Complainant alleged that he was retaliated against by the CEO several weeks later, who emailed him informing him his employment was terminated.

The Respondent argued that, having a belief the organisation was currently in a surplus financial position, they did not understand where such a loss could have occurred: as a result, the Complainant’s competence was called into question. The Complainant’s performance was discussed during a Board meeting – following discrepancies highlighted by the Board, the Complainant’s performance and competence was deemed poor, and he was ultimately terminated with immediate effect. The Respondent also noted the alleged misappropriation of funds by the CEO the Complainant reported to the Garda Fraud Squad and other relevant organisations.

The Adjudicator hearing this case ruled that the discrepancies flagged by the Respondent in their reasons for dismissal lacked credibility, and that the Complainant’s original email constituted a protected disclosure – ultimately, the dismissal was ruled as unfair since it stemmed directly from this protected disclosure.

This case highlights for employers that, where an employee makes a protected disclosure to management, such a protected disclosure must be appropriately investigated and reviewed to determine whether it is valid – should an employer decide such a disclosure is not valid without properly assessing same, this would be deemed as a breach of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

.

The Complainant had been employed as a Marketing Manager prior to commencing her maternity leave in mid-2023 – upon her return to work in January 2024, she found her role demoted to Portfolio Department Lead and her terms and conditions changed without consultation, notification or agreement of the Complainant. Furthermore, the individual brought into cover her maternity leave was to remain in the Complainant’s

original role. The Complainant argued that the company had no justifiable reason to demote her, and that this would not have occurred should she not have taken maternity leave.

The Respondent argued that, while she was not provided with written notice of this change to her terms and conditions, she was verbally informed via a call held with management prior to the Complainant’s return to work. Furthermore, following an internal review, it was claimed that the duties associated with the Complainant’s role were too broad for one person, and so the role had to be split.

The Adjudicator in this case ultimately ruled that the Complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of gender by not being returned to her original position and instead being demoted. As such, she was awarded €68,000 in compensation.

This case makes clear that, where an employee is on maternity leave and/or returning from same, they are legally entitled to return to their original role held prior to commencing their leave, or a suitable alternative where the terms and conditions are no less favourable – since the employee’s terms and conditions in this case were amended, this legal provision was breach and constituted discrimination.