Security man who called Liveline over improper videos loses protected disclosure case
A security officer who phoned RTE’s Liveline to alert Joe Duffy that a work colleague was allegedly making improper videos of women has lost out in a protected disclosure case against his employer.
The security guard worked at a venue on Dublin’s north-side and told the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that he was “very concerned” over a maintenance man working alongside him “frequently mis-using the CCTV system for his own gratification”.
The maintenance worker was employed at the venue by a different entity, a management company, and the security guard stated that he brought the matter to the attention of management several times over the years but to no avail.
The security guard stated that the maintenance man “seemed to be able to act with impunity” and he remained concerned after discovering in April of last year that the maintenance man was continuing to abuse the CCTV system and had made three videos.
The security guard - whose yearly contract was funded by the Dept of Rural and Community Affairs - alleged that the maintenance man previously told him that he downloaded images of women and shared them with his mates.
The security man reported the matter to the North side venue security manager but told the WRC that "he got nowhere" as the security manager told him to keep quiet as the matter could end up in court and he could be accused of making it up and that it was a waste of time.
The security man told the WRC that he later went to the Garda Station in Coolock and reported the matter.
However, exasperated by the lack of response to his disclosure of wrongdoing the security guard stated that he did an interview on the Joe Duffy Show on RTE radio.
He stated that finally seemed to result in action as the maintenance man’s company and the security guard’s own employer started to take steps to deal with the situation and commenced an investigation.
A record of the man making a formal complaint recorded that the security guard stated “that there were people working in the centre making improper videos of women, the women were working in the centre and members of the public using the services of the centre”.
The security guard stated that his efforts to put an end to the wrongdoing took a toll on him.
The security guard stated that he felt totally stressed, intimidated, threatened and anxious as a result of making a protected disclosure.
The man remained on sick leave at the time of the WRC hearing and alleged that he suffered penalisation as a result of making a protection disclosure.
The management company suspended the maintenance worker and the man’s employer denied that the security guard had made a protected disclosure or that he had suffered penalisation.
In her findings, WRC Adjudication Officer, Niamh O’Carroll Kelly found that the security man’s complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act fails.
Ms O’Carroll Kelly stated that on the day the maintenance man was being suspended the security man’s employer “tried to make sure the complainant was not in the vicinity at the time”.
She stated: “In doing so they acted responsibly and within the boundaries of the complainant’s contract of employment.”
Ms O’Carroll Kelly stated that the complainant was clearly distressed by the behaviour of the maintenance man.
Ms O’Carroll Kelly found that it was one of the security man’s duties to report matters of concern to his employer who in turn could report the matter to the relevant entity or authority.
Ms O’Carroll Kelly stated: “As such the incidents reported by the complainant cannot be relevant wrongdoings because he was merely carrying out the function for which he was employed.”
The security man’s employer stated that the worker had not made a protected disclosure as defined by the act.
The employer also stated that the security guard’s position is open to him when he is ready to return to work.
