Charity finance manager who raised concerns over accounts awarded €35,000 for dismissal

Irish Times

15 hours ago

A charity has been ordered to pay its former finance manager nearly €35,000 for dismissing him 'wholly or mainly' because he voiced fears its accounts might not stand up to an audit.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled that an email from the employee, a chartered accountant, looking for 'extra time' to investigate a loss of €33,000, sparked an 'adverse' response from its former chief executive.
In a ruling just published, the WRC held back the charity's identity, despite the complainant's objections to holding the case in private, citing the nature of its work and the potential that a Garda probe into allegations of 'criminal conduct and financial irregularities' might be prejudiced.
The charity asked that the case be entirely anonymised on the grounds that 'negative publicity' would lead to those using its services losing confidence.
READ MORE
The accountant, who represented himself before the WRC in March said he took up work with the charity as an independent contractor in June 2023 and joined its staff on September 30th that year.
The charity's previous finance manager had been out sick before leaving the organisation, while an accounts assistant also left in October 2023, leaving the complainant responsible for the bookkeeping and payroll, and dealing with creditors as well, the tribunal heard.
On October 26th, 2023, the complainant said, he told a board member, Mr A, he would have management accounts available 'as soon as possible' in response to a query.
The organisation's chief executive wrote the following day, the eve of the October bank holiday weekend, asking after the accounts and stating they had been due the previous day.
The claimant replied that he was looking into a 'draft loss of €33,000' and had identified matters requiring 'explanation and correction'.
'I must do a thorough clean up now in order to pass audit by end of January 2024. I need some extra time please,' the email concluded.
When the chief executive said the board member would come to the office the following Tuesday to 'assist with the anomalies in the management accounts' the claimant expressed concerns about independence, the email thread submitted to the WRC read. The chief executive said he was 'comfortable' with the board member assisting.
The complainant told the WRC the costs were being treated as current liabilities on the balance sheet and he was not confident they were being posted correctly.
'Substantial payments leaving the bank account in October 2023 triggered the query, and there was a snowball effect from there,' he said in his evidence, adding that he 'wanted to see what else was outstanding'.
The claimant said he 'wasn't sure' at the time whether or not there was wrongdoing afoot at the charity but he was 'confident that company law was not being complied with and that books and records were not being kept, which is an offence'.
He added that when he used the phrase 'pass audit' he 'did not do that lightly'.
'Accounts don't lie,' he said, adding that if he was in the place of his boss, he would have seen it as a 'red flag' and given more time to examine the matter instead of dismissing him.
He called in sick the Tuesday after the bank holiday. The chief executive wrote to him on Thursday, November 2nd terminating his probationary employment with immediate effect. He had been a direct employee of the charity for just over a month.
He also made formal written complaints to the Garda Fraud Squad, and the Charities Regulator the tribunal heard. The respondent's lawyers submitted that these complaints cited 'alleged misappropriation of funds by the CEO'.
Una Clifford BL instructed by John Carroll of Crowley Millar Solicitors, for the charity, argued that the email was not a protected disclosure, but 'just another excuse' for delay due to 'poor performance'.
The board member, Mr A, said he was an accountant himself and did not consider the complainant 'competent' in the role. Mr A accepted the accounts 'required improvement' but said they were not in 'as bad a state' as the complainant alleged.
The chief executive, in his evidence, denied the email of October 27th was a protected disclosure.
He said concerns were raised at a board meeting on Wednesday, November 1st about the complainant having 'inappropriate contact with service users', 'having his feet on the desk' and an 'issue' with Garda vetting. The accountant was terminated for poor performance, he added.
The witness said the claimant had 'disobeyed a direct reasonable instruction' about going to a Friday coffee morning with service users. The claimant said he only ever went in the company of a professional employed by the charity.
The tribunal also heard that in the days between the claimant writing his email and being dismissed, the charity's board discussed his Garda vetting application and noted in its minutes that he was 'not forthcoming' when he filled out the form.
The claimant told the WRC that he had been bogged down with work and was delayed in submitting the application – but that in any event, the Garda vetting bureau had advised him he did not need to be vetted.
He accepted when questioned that vetting was a term of his contract, but asked in response why he had been 'allowed on site without Garda vetting'.
Adjudicator Michael MacNamee wrote that when he heard the evidence on the question of alleged inappropriate contact with service users, he was 'left with the impression that it was far less serious than was suggested in the submissions'.
It lacked 'credibility' as a reason for dismissal, he added. Any issue around Garda vetting was 'no longer live' by the time it was brought before the board, he added.
The adjudicator noted that both Mr A and the complainant were accountants, but neither could be said to be independent, so there was no independent expert evidence before him on the accounts.
He concluded on the balance of probabilities that the charity had failed to rebut the presumption that the claimant had a 'reasonable belief that the accounts were not being kept in accordance with the legal requirements'.
He concluded that the email of October 27th, 2023 from the complainant was a protected disclosure, and that this 'started a chain reaction which led directly to the complainant's dismissal'. The WRC ruled that the accountant's dismissal 'resulted wholly or mainly from the making by him of a protected disclosure'.
Whatever concerns the chief executive had about the worker's performance 'whether justified or not', there was no written record of anything serious enough to require more than some 'coaching', the adjudicator wrote.
He found the chief executive had a 'strong adverse reaction' to the email of October 27th, 2023 which was exacerbated by the complainant's emails pushing back on allowing Mr A becoming involved, and leading ultimately to the chief executive's patience running out.
He ruled the worker was unfairly dismissed and awarded him €34,737 in compensation.