Ossian Smyth (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, all relate to the treatment of interpersonal grievances under the legislation. I accept they were made in a constructive spirit and in an attempt to improve the legislation, and I accept the Senators' good intentions. As was discussed previously, the purpose of both the Protected Disclosures Act and the whistleblowing directive is to protect people who report wrongdoing in the public interest. Matters of private interest, such as personal grievances between a worker and his or her employer or a co-worker, lie outside the scope of this legislation and such matters are protected by the significant corpus of employment law, much of which existed for many decades before the Protected Disclosures Act. It was never the intention the Act would be an alternative avenue for the airing of personal grievances but, as we discussed previously, there have been significant issues in this area, reflected not least in the concerns about the wording of the Act raised by the Supreme Court in the Baranya case. For this reason, I cannot accept amendment No. 1 to section 5(5A) proposed by Senators Gavan and Boylan.

Amendment No. 2, tabled by Senators Higgins and Ruane, proposes that grievances that arise as a consequence of an act of penalisation against a whistleblower should be treated as protected disclosures. This is not appropriate given it would require additional, parallel grievance systems to be established as part of an organisation's whistleblowing function, resulting in unnecessary cost and the duplication of effort. It would also have the effect of blurring the lines between reports of wrongdoing, on the one hand, and allegations of penalisation, on the other, whereas it is essential these be treated separately when they arise. Accordingly, I cannot accept amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 3 would provide that raising a grievance would not preclude a person from making a protected disclosure. The conditions for making a protected disclosure are clearly set out in section 5 of the Protected Disclosures Act and in the amendments made by the Bill. It is clear the raising of a grievance in no way prevents a person from being protected for also reporting a wrongdoing. In particular, section 5(7) states, “The motivation for making a disclosure is irrelevant to whether or not it is a protected disclosure.” I consider the amendment unnecessary and, as a result, I will not accept it.

Amendment No. 4 would provide that the Minister would issue guidelines in respect of the treatment of protected disclosures involving grievances. Section 28 already provides that the Minister shall issue guidance in respect of the operation of the legislation. The relationship between protected disclosures and grievances will be addressed comprehensively in this guidance. The amendment, therefore, is unnecessary and I will not accept it.