Security Guard Awarded €15,200: Why Employers Must Separate Protected Disclosures from Misconduct Allegations
Employers are entitled to investigate allegations of misconduct — including allegations involving employees who have previously raised complaints.
However, a recent Workplace Relations Commission decision demonstrates the risks that can arise where an employer moves from allegation to dismissal without first establishing what actually happened.
Security guard Christopher McDonagh was awarded a total of €15,200 after the WRC found that he had been unfairly dismissed and penalised following protected disclosures concerning safety and compliance issues at an International Protection Accommodation Service centre.
His employer maintained that he had been dismissed for gross misconduct. The WRC, however, found significant shortcomings in both the evidence supporting the allegation and the procedure followed before dismissal.
The important lesson for employers is not that an employee who makes a protected disclosure becomes immune from disciplinary action. It is that any subsequent misconduct allegation must be handled independently, fairly and on the evidence.
What happened?
Christopher McDonagh had worked for You’re Secure Solutions Limited for almost two years before his employment was terminated on 15 April 2025.
The employer alleged gross misconduct relating to an incident at the Ballisodare IPAS centre.
It was alleged that Mr McDonagh had entered the apartment of a female resident alone and without wearing a body camera.
Mr McDonagh denied the allegation and maintained that, following an instruction issued on 28 March, he had not entered residents' apartments alone without a body camera.
The central difficulty for the employer was that the WRC found that the allegation had not been properly established before the employee was dismissed.
Gross misconduct does not remove the need for fair procedures
Describing an allegation as gross misconduct does not remove the obligation to follow a proper disciplinary process.
In this case, the WRC found there had been:
- No investigation;
- No disciplinary hearing;
- No meaningful opportunity for the employee to answer the allegation; and
- No proper evidential basis establishing that the alleged incident occurred.
Serious allegations may justify serious disciplinary consequences — but the seriousness of an allegation makes a fair investigation more important, not less.
Employers considering summary dismissal should be particularly careful to ensure that the employee knows the case against them and has been given a genuine opportunity to respond before a decision is reached.
Where is the evidence?
The decision also highlights the importance of establishing an evidential basis before imposing disciplinary sanctions.
According to the WRC decision as reported, the employer did not produce several forms of evidence which might have assisted in establishing what actually happened.
Evidence not produced included:
- A witness statement concerning the alleged incident;
- CCTV footage;
- An incident report;
- A body-camera log; or
- Direct evidence from someone who witnessed the alleged event.
The managing director had not witnessed the alleged incident personally, and the evidence relied upon was regarded as hearsay.
Suspicion is not the same as evidence, and an allegation is not the same as a disciplinary finding.
The employee had repeatedly raised safety and compliance concerns
There was another important feature of the employment relationship.
Between September 2024 and March 2025, Mr McDonagh had made a number of complaints concerning matters including:
- Security cover;
- Fire-safety obligations; and
- Garda vetting.
The Adjudication Officer found that these reports amounted to protected disclosures because they contained information tending to show potential breaches of legal obligations and matters affecting health and safety.
The WRC also considered the employer's reaction to the frequency of the concerns being raised.
Management may become frustrated where the same employee repeatedly raises concerns. That frustration does not determine whether the underlying reports receive legal protection.
What if management sees the employee as a “serial complainer”?
This is perhaps the most useful practical lesson from the case.
In many workplaces, the difficulty is not that an employee raises one concern. The relationship can become strained when complaints are frequent, persistent or difficult for management to deal with.
Employers must resist allowing that frustration to influence how a later disciplinary issue is handled.
A difficult employee can still make a protected disclosure. A frequent complainer can still raise a legitimate safety concern. And neither fact prevents an employer from investigating genuine misconduct properly.
The safest approach is to keep the issues separate.
If there is an allegation of misconduct, investigate that allegation on its own facts and evidence rather than allowing the employee's history of complaints to become part of the reason for taking action.
Employers should identify when a complaint may be a protected disclosure
Not every workplace complaint is a protected disclosure.
An ordinary interpersonal grievance about the employee's own working relationship will not necessarily fall within protected disclosures legislation.
However, where a worker raises information concerning potential wrongdoing, employers should consider carefully whether the report may engage the Protected Disclosures legislation.
Issues potentially relevant can include information tending to show:
- A failure to comply with a legal obligation;
- A criminal offence;
- Endangerment of health or safety;
- Environmental damage;
- Certain misuse of public funds or resources; or
- Other categories of relevant wrongdoing recognised by the legislation.
The fact that a concern is inconvenient, repetitive or critical of management does not automatically prevent it from being protected.
Protected disclosures create an additional risk around penalisation
Employers should also be conscious of the prohibition on penalising a worker because they have made a protected disclosure.
Penalisation can extend beyond dismissal and may include other forms of disadvantage connected with the report.
This makes the employer's decision-making process particularly important where disciplinary action follows relatively soon after protected concerns have been raised.
Employers should be able to demonstrate that any action taken against the employee arose from independent and properly established reasons, rather than from the fact that the worker spoke up.
Timing can make the employer's records particularly important
Where an employee has recently made protected disclosures and is then subjected to disciplinary action, the chronology of events can become highly significant.
Employers should therefore keep clear records showing:
- When the alleged misconduct first came to management's attention;
- Who reported it;
- What evidence was obtained;
- Who carried out the investigation;
- What explanation the employee gave;
- Who made the disciplinary decision;
- What evidence that decision was based upon; and
- Why the particular sanction was considered appropriate.
Good records can help demonstrate that the disciplinary process had a genuine and independent basis.
The employee was awarded €15,200
The WRC awarded Mr McDonagh a total of €15,200 across the claims that succeeded.
The awards included:
- €14,000 arising from the dismissal;
- €500 relating to six Sundays worked without additional compensation; and
- €700 concerning a failure to provide written notice of changed terms following reassignment.
A number of other complaints were either withdrawn or found to be outside the applicable legal time limits.
The case therefore also illustrates how a breakdown in an employment relationship can result in several separate employment-law issues being examined at the same time.
There was also an important point on mitigation of loss
The decision was not entirely one-sided when compensation was assessed.
Mr McDonagh had been out of work for approximately 38 weeks but had applied for only six security roles and two caretaker positions during that period.
The Adjudication Officer reduced the calculated loss by 50% to reflect the limited efforts made to obtain alternative employment.
Employees claiming financial loss following dismissal are also expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate that loss.
For employers defending compensation claims, evidence concerning an employee's efforts to obtain replacement employment can therefore be relevant even where the dismissal itself is found to have been unfair.
What should employers take from this decision?
Before taking action against an employee who has raised concerns, ask:
- Could any of the employee's reports amount to protected disclosures?
- Have we separated those reports from the disciplinary allegation?
- Do we have actual evidence that the alleged misconduct occurred?
- Have we carried out a proper investigation?
- Has the employee been told precisely what is alleged?
- Have they been given a meaningful opportunity to respond?
- Is the decision-maker sufficiently impartial?
- Are we relying on direct evidence rather than assumption or hearsay?
- Can we demonstrate why disciplinary action is unrelated to the employee's disclosures?
- Have we retained a proper written record of the process?
The wider lesson for employers
Protected disclosure legislation does not prevent an employer from managing, investigating or disciplining an employee who has raised concerns.
Employees who make protected disclosures remain subject to legitimate workplace rules and standards.
The danger arises where management frustration with the employee begins to influence the disciplinary process, or where an allegation of misconduct is accepted without being properly investigated.
The question should never be: “How many times has this employee complained?” The question should be: “What has been reported, what actually happened, and can we prove it?”
Employers dealing with protected disclosures, whistleblowing concerns, disciplinary allegations or proposed dismissals should ensure that each issue is handled under the correct procedure and supported by a clear evidential record before a decision is made.
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained in relation to individual circumstances.
