A major private coach operator has been accused of having "defective and dangerous public vehicles" by a lawyer acting for a whistleblower who claims he was penalised for raising his concerns.
Urging a Workplace Relations Commission adjudicator to press on and hear his client's case today, the lawyer said his client's allegations against Citi Bus Ltd, trading as Dublin Coach, were "very serious" and a matter of "grave public importance".
The WRC was told the worker had recovered photos and video footage from a broken mobile phone pertaining to alleged defects with vehicles.
Nico Holloway has brought complaints under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and the Employment Equality Act 1998 the firm.
Four further unspecified statutory complaints were also referred in oral legal submissions to the Workplace Relations Commission today.
Des Ryan BL, appearing for the respondent, applied for an adjournment on the basis that the complainant side had submitted a booklet of evidence yesterday afternoon.
He said it was information the complainant "clearly thinks important - video footage, photographs and 13 so-called defect notifications in respect of vehicles".
"We respectfully say we would be seriously prejudiced if the hearing proceeds today, because we need more time to take instructions," Mr Ryan said.
The tribunal heard Mr Holloway's job with the company ended on 5 January 2024.
Mr Ryan stated that it was to the employment tribunal's credit that the case had been called on so quickly and that Mr Holloway would be less prejudiced by an adjournment than his client would be by the case going ahead immediately.
Mr Holloway's solicitor, Setanta Landers of Setanta Solicitors, said the material he had submitted to the tribunal this week was "consistent" with his client's claim and that there were no new allegations being made.
"There’s no substance, no credibility, to any application for adjournment on the basis they were not on notice," he said.
He said the firm had "simply ignored" an earlier legal letter.
"The documents forwarded to them are their own internal documents. They're documents that were always in their possession," he said.
"They haven’t even attempted to put in submissions. It would be one thing to come to the WRC and say we’ve prepared submissions as best we could - but they’ve not engaged with that in any shape or form," Mr Landers added.
"These are very serious allegations of defective and dangerous public vehicles. That is a matter of grave public importance," he said.
Mr Landers said he submitted the further documents when he did because his client had to have an old phone repaired in order to extract the relevant material.
Adjudicator David James Murphy said that, given the documents had been submitted the day before, it would be "pretty extraordinary" to "force the respondent to proceed if they're seeking adjournment".
He gave the complainant a week to make any further submissions and a further three weeks for the company to make replying submissions to those before adjourning the matter pending the fixing of a new date by the WRC’s schedulers.
The parties were split on how long would be required to hear the complaints with Mr Landers suggesting it could be heard in a single day, but Mr Ryan stating at least two days would be needed.
