1. Introduction

The case of Brian Gartland v Dundalk Town FC Limited (ADJ-00052398), decided in January 2025, is one of the most significant recent WRC decisions on the interaction between Section 6(2)(ba) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2015 — which deems a dismissal unfair where it results wholly or mainly from a protected disclosure — and the extended compensatory ceiling at Section 7(1A) of the Act. The case also illustrates the WRC’s willingness to award compensation for reputational damage in addition to immediate financial loss.

The Complainant was employed as Head of Football Operations with the Respondent from 1 January 2023, on a salary of €50,000. He had spent over a decade with the club, originally as a player and later as part of the management team. In April 2024, he raised serious concerns with the club owner about a medical condition affecting the new manager that he believed was impacting the safety of players. Within weeks, he was summarily dismissed by the owner on 11 May 2024, with the dismissal announced in the press within minutes of being communicated to him.

2. Legislation and Case Law

Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 establishes the presumption that the dismissal of an employee is unfair unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal. Section 6(2)(ba) further deems a dismissal to be unfair if it results wholly or mainly from the employee having made a protected disclosure.

Section 5(3)(d) of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 provides that the endangerment of the health or safety of any individual is a relevant wrongdoing for the purposes of the Act. Section 6 of the same Act provides that a disclosure is made in the manner specified by the Act if made by the worker to the worker’s employer.

Section 7(1) of the 1977 Act sets out the redress available for unfair dismissal: reinstatement, re-engagement, or compensation. Section 7(1)(c)(i) ordinarily limits a compensation award to 104 weeks’ remuneration. Section 7(1A) of the Act, however, provides that in relation to a case falling within Section 6(2)(ba), the reference to 104 weeks has effect as if it were a reference to 260 weeks — the highest individual compensatory ceiling available to the WRC under the Acts.

The Labour Court in Financial Services Union v Hanna (PDD201) considered the scope of compensation under the Protected Disclosures Act. EU Directive 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law, transposed into Irish law by the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, expressly requires that whistleblower remedies be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, and that they include compensation for both financial and intangible damage. Article 21 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure that remedies and full compensation are provided for damage suffered by reporting persons. 

3. Decision

The Adjudication Officer (Conor Stokes) accepted the Complainant’s evidence as cogent, clear and credible. On the question of whether the disclosure was a protected disclosure within the meaning of the 2014 Act, the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant’s communication to the club owner relating to the health condition of the new manager, and the likelihood that the health and safety of the players was being endangered, amounted to a protected disclosure under Section 5(3)(d).

On causation, the Adjudication Officer found that the Complainant had been dismissed shortly after raising the protected disclosure, without reason. In the absence of any evidence from the Respondent indicating otherwise, the Adjudication Officer was satisfied that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from the making of the protected disclosure. The dismissal was accordingly found to be unfair under Section 6(2)(ba).

On compensation, the Adjudication Officer noted that the Complainant’s direct financial loss was modest: he had secured an alternative role within four weeks at a slightly higher salary, with no ongoing loss. The lost month’s salary amounted to €4,166.66. To this the Adjudication Officer added contractual expenses of €8,337.96 and a contractual transfer fee entitlement of 2.5% amounting to €2,625.

The Adjudication Officer then considered the Complainant’s reputational damage. Accepting that the manner of the Complainant’s dismissal, and the almost immediate publication of the parting of ways, would follow him through Irish professional football for years to come, the Adjudication Officer assessed reputational loss conservatively at nine months’ salary, equivalent to €37,500.

4. Takeaway

The case is a leading recent example of the WRC making a substantial reputational damage award under the unfair dismissal regime where the dismissal results from a protected disclosure. The extension of the compensatory ceiling from 104 weeks to 260 weeks under Section 7(1A) provides the headroom within which the WRC may calibrate an award reflecting both financial loss and the wider impact on the Complainant.

For employers, the case is a stark reminder that protected disclosure dismissals are treated as among the most serious categories of unfair dismissal. Where an employee raises a health or safety concern — even an inelegantly phrased one — the employer must engage with the substance of the concern rather than treating it as a complaint about the disclosure-making employee.

Employers must also recognise the reputational dimension of dismissal communications. A press release or social media statement that lacks the consent of the dismissed employee, or that creates an impression of unsatisfactory performance, may itself form part of the unfair dismissal complaint and may significantly increase the quantum of the award.

For employees, the case is helpful authority that compensation under the unfair dismissal regime, where Section 6(2)(ba) is engaged, is not limited to immediate lost earnings. Reputational damage, where evidenced in the particular industry and personal circumstances of the Complainant, may form a substantial portion of the award.

5. Further information

This article was prepared for informational purposes only. For further advice, please email enquiries@crushell.ie or contact the offices of Crushell & Co Solicitors.

6. About Crushell & Co

Crushell & Co is a specialist law firm focused on protecting and advancing the rights of employees in Ireland. We offer a nationwide service, advising individuals on a wide range of legal and regulatory issues arising at work, including employment law, employment immigration and workplace accidents and injuries.

We help employees understand their position and options by translating complex legal issues into clear, practical advice. Our approach is tailored to each client, ensuring that our strategy is aligned with their personal and professional circumstances.

Connect: @CrushellLaw or www.crushell.ie