In a recent decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (the “WRC”) in the case of Christopher McDonagh v You’re Secure Solutions Limited (ADJ-00059440), the WRC found that a security officer had been unfairly dismissed after making protected disclosures and raising health and safety concerns. The Adjudicator, Breiffni O’Neill, awarded the Complainant €14,000 in compensation for the unfair dismissal.
Facts:
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent as a security guard from June 2023 until his dismissal in April 2025. During his employment, he raised numerous concerns relating to payroll issues, Sunday and night premium payments, annual leave calculations, working time compliance, contractual documentation, health and safety matters, workplace procedures, and failure to comply with the Security Industry Employment Regulation Order (“ERO”). The Complainant also made a number of reports concerning safety and compliance issues at an Internation Protection Accommodation Service (“IPAS”) centre where he worked. These reports included concerns relating to security cover, fire safety obligations and Garda vetting procedures. The Complainant maintained that these concerns constituted protected disclosures pursuant to the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014. His position was that he was unfairly dismissed, without any fair investigation or disciplinary hearing, as retaliation for raising these concerns.
The Respondent argued that the Complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct, because he had entered an IPAS centre resident’s apartment without authorisation and without a body camera, contrary to company procedures. The Respondent also relied on allegations that the Complainant failed to engage with management, restricted his availability and failed to complete required paperwork.
Decision:
The Adjudicator found that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair contrary to section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, and upheld his unfair dismissal claim. The Adjudicator noted that the only evidence of any dismissal process was a termination letter issued on 15th April 2025. There was no evidence of an investigation, no invitation to a disciplinary hearing, no opportunity for the Complainant to respond to the allegations and no indication that any representations from him were sought or considered before the decision to dismiss was made.
The Adjudicator was also critical of the Respondent’s reliance on the allegation that the Complainant had entered a resident’s apartment without authorisation. The Adjudicator observed that no witness statements, CCTV evidence, incident reports or body camera records were produced. The Respondent relied primarily on hearsay evidence from its Managing Director, who had not witnessed the alleged incident. The Adjudicator was not satisfied that the Respondent had established the alleged misconduct on the balance of probabilities.
The Adjudicator furthermore found that several of the Complainant’s reports concerning security, fire safety and Garda vetting issues could constitute protected disclosures under the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014. While acknowledging that management had become frustrated with the volume of concerns raised by the Complainant, the Adjudicator stressed that the legislation protects qualifying disclosures regardless of whether management considers the employee raising them to be difficult or a nuisance.
Having considered the timing of the disclosures, management’s awareness of them, the absence of any credible misconduct basis for dismissal and the lack of any convincing alternative explanation for the termination of the Complainant’s employment, the Adjudicator concluded that the Complainant’s protected disclosures were the principal reason, or among the principal reasons, for his dismissal contrary to section 6(2)(ba) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts.
The Adjudicator’s assessment of the appropriate level of compensation was particularly interesting. He awarded compensation of €14,000 consisting of €13,300 for actual loss and €700 for prospective loss. The Adjudicator found that the Complainant’s efforts to mitigate his losses had been insufficient and noted that, taken on its own, that would justify a significant reduction in compensation in line with well-established case law in this area. However, he decided that the Complainant’s limited mitigation efforts had to be balanced against what was described as the Respondent’s conduct in dismissing him. In considering the level of compensation to award, the Adjudicator found that it would be “wholly inappropriate” to focus solely on the Complainant’s mitigation efforts in circumstances where the Respondent’s conduct in dismissing him was “entirely unreasonable”. The Adjudicator relied on the decision of Kathryn O’Boyle v Temperature Controlled Pharmaceuticals Limited (ADJ-0032667), where it was stated that that:
“It would be wholly unjustified to penalise the Complainant solely for a conclusion that she did not make a sufficient effort of mitigate her losses where the balance of unfairness and failure to comply with the terms of Section 7 as a whole lie squarely with the Respondent.”
The Adjudicator decided to apply a reduction of 50% to the Complainant’s actual financial loss to reflect his inadequate mitigation attempts as well as the Respondent’s own conduct in dismissing him summarily without any process and the contribution that this conduct had on his ability to secure new employment at an earlier stage.
Takeaway for Employers:
One of the most interesting aspects of this decision is the Adjudicator’s treatment of mitigation and his consideration of the Respondent’s conduct as a relevant factor in deciding on an appropriate award of compensation. While the Complainant’s efforts to secure alternative employment were criticised and found to be less than satisfactory, the Adjudicator nevertheless rejected the suggestion that compensation should be substantially reduced on that basis alone.
Although employees are under a statutory duty to mitigate their losses, employers should, in light of this decision and the decision in Kathryn O’Boyle v Temperature Controlled Pharmaceuticals Limited, be hesitant to assume that an award of compensation will be significantly reduced on that basis where there have been serious procedural failures in the dismissal process.
This decision also serves as a reminder that employers must carefully distinguish between frustration with an employee’s complaints and legitimate concerns regarding protected disclosures or health and safety complaints. Employees who repeatedly raise concerns may be perceived as difficult or time-consuming, but such perceptions cannot form the basis for adverse treatment where significant statutory protections apply.
This decision also demonstrates the continued importance of procedural fairness. Even where serious allegations of misconduct arise, employers should ensure that a proper investigation is conducted, allegations are put to the employee, and the employee is afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond before any decision is taken. The absence of these basic procedural safeguards was a decisive factor in the outcome of this case.
Link – ADJ-00059440
Authors – Jane Holian and Jenny Wakely
24th September 2026
If you found this article useful you might like our employment law newsletter. We write monthly articles, like this, covering interesting cases, decisions, news and developments in Ireland.