IPAS security guard unfairly dismissed after disclosing safety concerns, WRC finds

A security guard employed by You’re Secure Solutions Limited was unfairly dismissed after raising safety and compliance concerns at an International Protection Accommodation Service (IPAS) centre, according to a ruling by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). Christopher McDonagh, a former security guard, was terminated on 15 April 2025, following nearly two years of employment with the company. The WRC found that his dismissal was unjustified and that he was penalised for making protected disclosures. McDonagh was accused of gross misconduct, including allegedly entering the apartment of a female resident at the Ballisodare IPAS centre without a body camera. However, the WRC adjudication officer, Breiffni O’Neill, determined that the company failed to provide any evidence supporting these claims. There was no investigation, no disciplinary hearing, and no opportunity for McDonagh to respond to the allegations before being dismissed. The company did not present witness statements, CCTV footage, incident reports, or body-camera logs to substantiate its case. The managing director's testimony was described as hearsay, as he claimed to have not witnessed the alleged incident. McDonagh denied entering any apartment after receiving instructions on 28 March prohibiting such actions without a body camera. He stated that he had previously entered residents' apartments alone as part of his regular duties. The WRC ruled that the company had not established that the alleged misconduct occurred or that it had reasonable grounds to believe it had. McDonagh had made multiple complaints between September 2024 and March 2025 regarding security coverage, fire-safety obligations, and garda vetting at the IPAS centre. These reports were deemed protected disclosures under the Protected Disclosures Act, as they contained information suggesting potential breaches of legal obligations and matters affecting public health and safety. The adjudication officer noted that management had grown “deeply frustrated” with the frequency of McDonagh’s complaints and may have viewed him as a “nuisance” or “serial complainer.” Despite this, the law protects employees who make such disclosures, regardless of whether their concerns are convenient for the employer. The WRC concluded that the protected disclosures were either the primary or one of the main reasons for McDonagh’s dismissal. It also found that the termination constituted penalisation for raising health and safety issues. McDonagh was awarded €14,000 for the unfair dismissal. The amount was reduced by 50% due to the limited number of job applications he pursued during his period of unemployment. However, the adjudication officer acknowledged that the company’s “entirely unreasonable” summary dismissal without proper procedure warranted consideration. In addition to the dismissal award, McDonagh received €500 for working six Sundays without additional pay and €700 for the failure to provide written notice of changes to his terms of employment when he was reassigned to Ballisodare. Some of his other grievances were outside the legal time limit, and others were withdrawn. The case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in workplace dismissals and underscores the protections afforded to employees who raise legitimate safety concerns. The outcome serves as a reminder of the legal safeguards available to workers in Ireland, particularly those who speak out against unsafe conditions or practices within their workplaces.