Fish Shack Founder Awarded €75,549: Why Employers Must Keep Protected Disclosures Separate from Dismissal Decisions
An employer may believe there is a genuine commercial reason for ending an employee's employment.
But where that employee has recently raised concerns about potential wrongdoing, the employer also needs to be able to demonstrate that those concerns played no part in the decision.
A recent Labour Court determination involving the founder of the Fish Shack restaurant business provides a significant example.
Padraic Hanley has been awarded €75,549 after the Labour Court concluded that four communications he made amounted to protected disclosures and that his employment would not have been terminated but for those disclosures.
For employers, the case reinforces a critical principle: once an employee raises potential wrongdoing, any later decision affecting that employee needs a clear, independent and well-documented basis.
Case History
WRC: Padraic Hanley v PBR Restaurants Limited — ADJ-00030290
High Court: Hanley v PBR Restaurants Ltd t/a Fish Shack Café [2024] IEHC 662
High Court Costs Decision: [2025] IEHC 224
Following the High Court decision, the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for a fresh hearing.
What happened?
Padraic Hanley had established the Dublin restaurant business operated by PBR Restaurants Ltd.
The business entered examinership in 2019 and subsequently came under new ownership.
Several restaurants were sold, while four Fish Shack café units remained with PBR Restaurants.
Mr Hanley and three of his sons continued working for the business following the takeover.
However, relations between Mr Hanley and the new management subsequently deteriorated.
The key legal question ultimately became whether communications made by Mr Hanley constituted protected disclosures and whether his subsequent loss of employment was connected to them.
Four communications were found to be protected disclosures
The Labour Court considered four communications made by Mr Hanley during March 2020.
The concerns included:
- An objection to a proposal concerning payment of a chef “cash in hand”, including concerns about Revenue compliance;
- Concerns about opening a Fish Shack café at Dún Laoghaire Harbour during an orange weather warning;
- Concerns about using a person who was allegedly not a registered gas installer to deal with a gas leak, together with concerns about payment without an invoice; and
- A further communication relating to late-night management emails.
The Labour Court ultimately determined that the communications qualified for protection.
A workplace concern does not need to be labelled a “protected disclosure” by the employee before employers should consider whether whistleblower protection may apply.
What can amount to a protected disclosure?
The Protected Disclosures legislation protects workers who report information concerning certain categories of relevant wrongdoing.
Depending on the circumstances, relevant wrongdoing can include matters such as:
- Criminal offences;
- Failure to comply with legal obligations;
- Endangerment of health or safety;
- Environmental damage;
- Certain misuse of public funds or resources;
- Miscarriages of justice; and
- Concealment or destruction of information relating to relevant wrongdoing.
Employers should assess what the employee is actually reporting — not simply the language they use to report it.
Timing became significant
Mr Hanley's protected disclosures were made during March 2020.
On 19 March 2020, he was laid off on the stated basis of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Labour Court heard that other employees later returned to work, while Mr Hanley and his sons did not.
Employers can have perfectly legitimate commercial reasons for lay-off, redundancy or restructuring.
However, where those decisions closely follow a protected disclosure, the chronology may come under considerable scrutiny.
The closer the protected disclosure and adverse employment decision are in time, the more important the employer's contemporaneous records may become.
A genuine business crisis does not remove whistleblower protection
The circumstances arose during the extraordinary disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Businesses across Ireland were making urgent decisions concerning closures, lay-offs, staffing levels and survival.
That commercial context can clearly be relevant when explaining an employment decision.
But it does not automatically answer the legal question of why a particular employee was selected or why that employee was not brought back when others returned.
A legitimate business event and an unlawful employment decision can potentially exist at the same time.
Employers therefore need evidence connecting the individual employment decision to the genuine commercial reason relied upon.
Keep the person raising the concern separate from the concern itself
Protected disclosure cases can become particularly difficult where the relationship between an employee and management has already deteriorated.
The employee may be viewed internally as:
- Difficult;
- Disruptive;
- Oppositional;
- Overly critical;
- Uncooperative; or
- Someone who repeatedly challenges management decisions.
None of those descriptions determines whether the information being raised qualifies for statutory protection.
Manage conduct as conduct. Manage performance as performance. Manage protected disclosures as protected disclosures.
Allowing frustration with the employee to influence another employment decision can create significant legal risk.
Protected-disclosure dismissals can bypass the normal service requirement
Ordinarily, an employee generally needs at least 12 months' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim under the Unfair Dismissals Acts.
However, the normal service requirement does not apply in the same way where the dismissal results from the employee having made a protected disclosure.
Employers should therefore never assume that a recently hired employee has no unfair dismissal protection simply because they have less than 12 months' service.
Protected disclosures are one of the important exceptions employers should consider before making an early-service dismissal.
Document the reason for the decision before the dispute arises
When an employee who has made a protected disclosure is subsequently selected for lay-off, redundancy, disciplinary action or dismissal, employers should be able to demonstrate why.
The written record should identify:
- Who made the employment decision;
- When the decision was first contemplated;
- What business or employment reason applied;
- What evidence supported that reason;
- What selection criteria were used;
- Who else was considered;
- Whether the decision-maker knew about the protected disclosure;
- What alternatives were considered; and
- Why the same decision would have been taken regardless of the disclosure.
Trying to reconstruct the reason for a dismissal years later is far harder than recording it properly at the time.
The employer did not appear at the rehearing
Another practical feature of the Labour Court proceedings is worth noting.
PBR Restaurants did not appear before the Labour Court at the fresh hearing.
Where an employer is defending a statutory dismissal claim, its ability to provide evidence explaining why the employment ended can be crucial.
An employment tribunal cannot assess evidence the employer never puts before it.
Employers receiving a WRC complaint, Labour Court appeal or rehearing notice should engage with the process early, preserve the relevant documents and identify the witnesses necessary to explain the decision.
The dispute lasted more than five years
This decision also demonstrates how long an employment dispute can continue once litigation begins.
Mr Hanley's initial complaint was unsuccessful before the WRC.
He subsequently appealed to the Labour Court and was again unsuccessful.
The matter then reached the High Court on a point of law.
The High Court set aside the earlier Labour Court determination and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing.
The rehearing ultimately resulted in the finding of unfair dismissal and the substantial compensation award.
A decision made in minutes can become litigation lasting years.
€75,549 awarded for financial loss
Having upheld the complaint, the Labour Court assessed the financial loss suffered by Mr Hanley.
€75,549
Compensation awarded following the finding of unfair dismissal.
The award reflected his full loss of earnings during an approximately 11-month period of unemployment, followed by reduced losses after he commenced consultancy work.
The case therefore also reinforces the importance of the financial consequences that can follow a dismissal decision.
The protected disclosures regime is now even more significant for employers
The events in this case date back to 2020.
Since then, Ireland's protected disclosures regime has been substantially strengthened and expanded.
Employers should therefore avoid treating the case as simply an historical dispute.
Under the current regime, penalisation is defined broadly and can include dismissal, suspension, demotion, changes to duties, reductions in wages, disciplinary action, intimidation, harassment, disadvantage and other forms of detrimental treatment.
Modern whistleblowing compliance requires more than having a reporting email address. Employers also need to consider how the person who raised the concern is treated afterwards.
What should employers take from this decision?
If an employee has raised potential wrongdoing, ask:
- Could the communication amount to a protected disclosure?
- Has it been routed through the appropriate internal process?
- Who knows the identity of the reporting person?
- Are managers aware of the prohibition on penalisation?
- Is another disciplinary, redundancy or performance process underway?
- Is there an independent reason for that process?
- Can that reason be evidenced?
- Has the chronology been documented?
- Would the same action have occurred if no disclosure had been made?
- Have we taken legal advice before making an irreversible decision?
The wider lesson for employers
Making a protected disclosure does not make an employee immune from ordinary workplace management.
An employer can still address genuine performance concerns, misconduct, redundancy situations and legitimate restructuring.
The key is being able to demonstrate that the action was taken for genuine and independently justifiable reasons — rather than because the employee raised potential wrongdoing.
Don't ask whether the employee is difficult. Ask whether the decision would be exactly the same if they had never raised the concern.
Employers dealing with protected disclosures alongside dismissal, redundancy, discipline or restructuring should ensure that each process is kept separate, properly documented and supported by objective evidence.
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.
