A financial controller who highlighted alleged financial irregularities at a forestry company has lost his unfair constructive dismissal action against the firm.
In his resignation letter from September 1, 2019, the financial controller claimed that if he was to continue in the role in any capacity, he would have to continue to break the law on his employer’s behalf.
The financial controller alleged that his employer encouraged staff members to claim fraudulent expenses instead of awarding pay rises, and put employees’ personal purchases through company accounts to reclaim VAT.
Claims of financial irregularities at forestry company
The financial controller – who commenced work in February 2019 and resigned seven months later in September 2019 – also alleged that his employer allowed employees to falsely claim business mileage while driving a company car and signatures were being falsified on official documents.
In his letter, the financial controller also alleged that the employer paid tax-free expenses to non-employees and had been operating a forestry insurance revenue stream without having been approved to do so by the Central Bank.
Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) adjudicator, Breiffni O’Neill noted in his report that while the financial controller certainly highlighted some concerns surrounding alleged illegal or fraudulent behaviour in the company, “I believe that much more could have been done by him to raise these concerns”.
O’Neill stated that this would have included the financial controller giving his employer an opportunity to address and investigate his allegation, prior to him taking the decision to resign from the company
O’Neill stated: “Moreover, I cannot understand why, if he was so concerned about the illegal practices, which he claimed were so pervasive and led to him leaving the company, these were not highlighted in writing prior to him writing his letter of resignation.”
Adjudication by WRC
The WRC adjudicator stated that given these insufficient efforts on behalf of the financial controller, “I believe that he has failed to meet the necessary tests and find therefore that he was not constructively dismissed”.
At hearing, the employer denied that the financial controller had highlighted many of the allegations made at the hearing prior to submitting his letter of resignation.
O’Neill noted that while the allegations made by the financial controller were largely refuted by the employer, the employer accepted that the financial controller had highlighted that one of the directors had purchased his personal vehicle through the company, and that he sent an email to the CEO on August 15, 2019 regarding the payment of expenses.
The financial controller claimed that he had made a protected disclosure concerning the alleged tax-free payments to employees.
However, O’Neill stated that he did not believe there was sufficient evidence to suggest that a protected disclosure was made in respect of alleged illegal tax-free payments allegedly being made to employees.
O’Neill did find that the financial controller did make a protected disclosure concerning the allegation of a company director putting the purchase of a private car through the company.
However, the WRC officer found that the financial controller was not penalised for having made such a protected disclosure.