Ashton Dog Pound, in North Dublin, has been ordered to pay €18,000 in compensation after a dog keeper was retaliated against for raising concerns about allegations of animal abuse.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found that a series of statements made against Conor Williamson had been ‘spurious’ and ‘repeated’ – and appeared to be an ‘orchestrated campaign’ to intimidate and intimidate him .
However, the adjudicating officer made no findings of fact about the allegations raised by Mr Williamson – only that he took the allegations to his employer and then to the Garda.
In a decision released Wednesday morning, the WRC upheld its complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act against David Stone and Carol Stone, as the Ashton Dog Pound and Warden Service.
Mr Williamson testified he got no response when he lodged a complaint with his employer in July 2020 following the euthanasia of two dogs at the pound – and so he went to report his concerns at the Garda.
He told the court at a hearing in June this year that as a result of this report allegations were made against him, he was threatened and his van was searched in outside working hours.
The court was told that Mr Williamson had been investigated and disciplined with a final written warning in December 2020 for refusing a ‘reasonable direction from management’ to work on call and for making “extremely derogatory and entirely untrue” statements on Facebook in violation of his social status. media policy.
Mr Williamson said his employer offered him a settlement deal the following February with a non-disclosure agreement, which he declined.
The following month he was suspended due to allegations of “bullying and threatening behaviour” made against him by other staff, he told the WRC.
A second disciplinary proceeding ended with a finding that he was guilty of misconduct and a 12-month extension of his last written warning.
His lawyer, Béibhinn Murphy, who appeared on behalf of O’Hanrahan Lally D’Alton Solicitors, argued that his client had been subject to “unjustified disciplinary proceedings by his employer” because he had reported his concerns to his bosses and the gardaí.
Hugh Hegarty, for the pound, said Mr Williamson had claimed to be a whistleblower on ‘numerous occasions’ but the company had ‘no knowledge or confirmation’ that this was the case.
He said Mr Williamson was seeking punishment for being fairly investigated and disciplined for an incident that preceded the “alleged whistleblower”, before being disciplined again.
Mr Hegarty said the complainant made ‘extremely derogatory and entirely untrue’ statements against the company in breach of its social media policy – but no further action was taken after the posts were deleted and that, therefore, Mr. Williamson had not been “detrimentally treated”.
He added that the complainant had been given a ‘fair and lenient’ sanction for refusing a reasonable instruction from management in refusing to work on-call hours.
He said it was clear the reason for Mr Williamson’s subsequent suspension was that more than half of the staff at the pound, or six out of 10 employees, had made a ‘very serious complaint’ about his behavior and that there was no connection to any allegation. disclosures.
“The plaintiff believes that [once] he identified himself as a whistleblower that he can act in any way he chooses at work and when he discovered that is not the case, fabricated and shaped the idea that he has kind of been treated unfairly, just because he hasn’t been given carte blanche to do whatever he wants,” Mr Hegarty said.
Court officer Valerie Murtagh wrote that Mr Williamson’s testimony, given under solemn affirmation, had been “relevant and compelling”.
Ms Murtagh concluded the investigation against her was ‘fake’ and that the statements alleging bullying and harassment were ‘spurious’.
“[These] have the characteristics of a management-orchestrated campaign to intimidate and intimidate the complainant. It appears to me that the statements had been repeated and I note that a number of these same staff recanted them shortly after making them,” she wrote.
She concluded that the investigation and the disciplinary process had been flawed; that Mr Williamson’s suspension was a sanction and that the complainant had been retaliated against for making allegations of animal abuse to his employer and the Garda.
Ms Murtagh found Mr Williamson’s claim under the Protected Disclosures Act to be well founded and ordered the defendants to pay him €18,000 in compensation.
#Dog #pound #owners #ordered #pay #keeper #reported #alleged #abuse
