Skip to main content

Ormonde Solicitors

Menu

Protected Disclosures: Why Employers Must Handle Whistleblowing Carefully

A recent Workplace Relations Commission decision has placed protected disclosures firmly back on the agenda for employers, boards and senior management teams.

A disability charity was ordered to pay over €320,000 to a senior manager following findings that she had been penalised after making protected disclosures. The award is reported to be a record sum under the Protected Disclosures legislation.

The facts of the case are significant, but the wider employer lesson is clear:

When a worker raises concerns that may amount to a protected disclosure, the employer’s response must be careful, structured and legally informed.

Poor handling can turn a difficult internal issue into a major legal, financial, governance and reputational risk.

What Is a Protected Disclosure?

A protected disclosure is commonly referred to as whistleblowing.

In broad terms, it involves a worker disclosing information which, in their reasonable belief, tends to show relevant wrongdoing and which came to their attention in a work-related context. The Protected Disclosures Act 2014, as amended, provides protections for workers who make such disclosures. Official guidance confirms that workers who make protected disclosures should not be treated unfairly or lose their job because they have made a disclosure.

Protected disclosures can arise in many areas, including concerns about legal breaches, misuse of funds, health and safety, governance failures, regulatory breaches or improper conduct.

For employers, the first mistake is often assuming that the issue is “just a grievance” or “just a complaint”.

Sometimes it may be. But sometimes the same facts may involve a grievance, a dignity at work issue, a governance concern, a regulatory issue and a protected disclosure at the same time.

That is why early assessment matters.

Penalisation Is a Serious Risk

The central risk under protected disclosures legislation is penalisation.

Penalisation can include obvious acts such as dismissal, demotion or disciplinary action. But it can also include more subtle forms of disadvantage, such as exclusion, negative treatment, changes to role, loss of responsibilities, reputational damage, pressure, intimidation or actions that make the worker’s position more difficult.

The WRC states that, in a penalisation claim, the burden of proof falls on the employer. Penalisation will be deemed to have resulted from the reporting person having made a protected disclosure unless the employer proves the act or omission was justified on other grounds.

That is a critical point for employers.

If an employer takes action against a worker after a protected disclosure has been made, it must be able to show a clear, lawful and properly documented reason for that action.

Timing matters. Process matters. Language matters. Records matter.

Governance Failures Can Become Employment Law Risks

This case is particularly relevant for charities, not-for-profits, public-funded bodies, healthcare providers and organisations with boards or management committees.

Whistleblowing issues are not always confined to HR.

They may involve board conduct, procurement concerns, financial controls, governance procedures, regulatory reporting, external consultants, conflicts of interest or relationships with funders.

Where governance issues overlap with employment issues, the risk can escalate quickly.

For employers and boards, the key question is:

Who is independently assessing the disclosure, and who is managing the employment relationship?

If the same individuals who are the subject of the concern are also influencing the response to the worker, the organisation may face serious difficulty later.

A protected disclosure process should be independent, fair and properly documented from the start.

Do Not Retaliate — Even Subtly

Most employers understand that dismissing someone because they made a protected disclosure is unlawful.

The greater risk is often more subtle.

After a disclosure, the worker may be:

  • excluded from meetings;
  • stripped of responsibilities;
  • subjected to excessive scrutiny;
  • moved aside from their role;
  • bypassed in decision-making;
  • criticised for raising concerns;
  • labelled as difficult or disruptive;
  • pressured to withdraw or settle;
  • placed under an organisational review;
  • subjected to a process that appears targeted.

Even where an employer believes it has legitimate business reasons for change, those reasons must be separate from the disclosure and capable of being evidenced.

The employer should ask:

Would we be taking this same action if the worker had not made the disclosure?

Can we prove that?

Was the process independent?

Was the worker treated fairly?

Were decisions properly recorded?

If those questions cannot be answered confidently, the organisation may be exposed.

Organisational Reviews Need Clear Boundaries

One of the reported features of the case was an organisational review that became a key part of the dispute.

Organisational reviews can be legitimate. Employers and boards are entitled to review structures, governance, reporting lines and senior roles.

However, where a review follows a protected disclosure, employers need to be particularly careful.

A review should not be used, or appear to be used, as a vehicle to sideline the person who raised concerns.

Before commencing a review in this context, employers should clearly define:

  • the purpose of the review;
  • who authorised it;
  • its terms of reference;
  • who will conduct it;
  • whether the reviewer is independent;
  • what evidence will be considered;
  • who will be consulted;
  • what the review can and cannot recommend;
  • how conflicts of interest will be managed;
  • how the reporting person will be protected.

If the review expands beyond its original purpose without explanation, or if it produces recommendations that appear to target the whistleblower, the employer may face significant legal and reputational difficulty.

Boards Must Take Protected Disclosures Seriously

For board members and charity trustees, this decision is an important reminder that protected disclosures are a governance issue as well as an employment law issue.

A board should not treat whistleblowing as a personal dispute, internal politics or an inconvenience.

Once a protected disclosure is raised, the organisation should consider:

  • whether the disclosure falls under the Protected Disclosures framework;
  • whether any board member or senior person has a conflict of interest;
  • whether external advice is required;
  • whether an independent investigation is needed;
  • whether interim protective measures are necessary;
  • whether regulatory reporting obligations arise;
  • how the worker will be protected from penalisation;
  • how decisions will be documented.

A failure at board level can create liability for the organisation and serious reputational harm.

Protected Disclosures Policies Are Not Enough

Employers should have a protected disclosures policy. In many cases, private sector employers with 50 or more employees are required to establish formal internal reporting channels and procedures under the amended legislation. The WRC has published guidance on employer obligations under the Protected Disclosures framework.

However, having a policy is only the starting point.

The real test is whether the organisation knows how to apply it when a serious concern is raised.

A strong protected disclosures framework should include:

  • a clear reporting channel;
  • named responsible persons;
  • confidentiality safeguards;
  • acknowledgement and follow-up procedures;
  • protection against penalisation;
  • conflict-of-interest safeguards;
  • escalation options;
  • record-keeping;
  • training for managers and board members;
  • access to external advice where required.

A policy that sits in a handbook but is not understood by managers will offer limited protection.

Separate the Disclosure From the Person

One of the most important principles for employers is to separate the issue raised from the person raising it.

A worker who makes a disclosure may be senior, difficult, frustrated, emotional, mistaken about some details, or involved in separate workplace disagreements.

That does not mean the disclosure can be ignored.

Employers should avoid focusing only on the worker’s motive, tone or personality. The key question is whether they have disclosed information that, in their reasonable belief, tends to show relevant wrongdoing.

The organisation should assess the substance of the concern and handle any separate employment issues carefully and independently.

Practical Steps for Employers

When a worker raises a concern that may be a protected disclosure, employers should take the following steps:

  1. Pause before reacting

Do not dismiss the concern as a grievance, personality clash or management issue without proper assessment.

  1. Identify whether it may be a protected disclosure

Consider whether the worker is disclosing information about relevant wrongdoing in a work-related context.

  1. Acknowledge the concern appropriately

Follow the organisation’s protected disclosures policy and any statutory procedures that apply.

  1. Protect the worker from penalisation

Make sure managers, board members and colleagues understand that retaliatory treatment is prohibited.

  1. Manage conflicts of interest

Anyone implicated in the disclosure should not control the response.

  1. Document all decisions

Keep clear records of what was raised, who assessed it, what steps were taken and why.

  1. Take advice early

Protected disclosures can become legally complex very quickly. Early advice may prevent major exposure later.

  1. Train senior people

Boards, trustees, senior managers and HR teams should understand the seriousness of protected disclosures.

Warning Signs for Employers

Employers should be particularly cautious where, after a disclosure, there are proposals to:

  • restructure the worker’s role;
  • remove duties;
  • appoint someone above them;
  • commence a disciplinary process;
  • place them under investigation;
  • exclude them from meetings;
  • criticise their loyalty;
  • pressure them to resign;
  • use an organisational review to change reporting lines;
  • settle or suppress the issue quickly.

Any of these steps may be lawful in the right circumstances, but they must be carefully justified and documented.

Key Takeaway for Employers

Protected disclosures require careful handling from the moment they are raised.

An employer’s first response can shape everything that follows.

The safest approach is to take the concern seriously, assess it properly, protect the worker from penalisation, manage conflicts of interest and keep clear records.

For boards and senior management teams, the message is clear:

Do not treat whistleblowing as a nuisance.

Treat it as a serious legal and governance issue.

A poor response to a protected disclosure can be far more damaging than the disclosure itself.

📞 Contact us today for confidential guidance.

Disclaimer: This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Ready to Take
the Next Step?

Book a Call

Schedule a consultation with our team to discuss your legal needs and explore your options with confidence.

We Handle the Details

Trust our experienced solicitors to manage your case with precision and care, keeping you informed at every step.

Achieve Your Desired Outcome

Let us help you secure the best possible result—whether it’s a fair settlement, legal resolution, or peace of mind.

Arrange a Call Back or Send a Query

    We are honoured to share that Ormonde Solicitors & Employment Matters has been named the Business All-Star Labour & Employment Law Practice of the Year 2025 & 2026. This prestigious recognition from the All-Ireland Business Foundation reflects our ongoing commitment to fair workplace practices and expert legal representation, led by the dedication and vision of Sean Ormonde. We are deeply grateful to our loyal clients, dedicated team, and the AIBF for their continued support and trust.