A former charity administrator has alleged that his efforts in questioning a payment were "fundamental" to his selection for redundancy by the organisation.
The claim was aired before the Workplace Relations Commission at a preliminary hearing into a complaint under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 by Phillip Beattie against Protestant Aid, following his redundancy in 2024.
Mr Beattie has alleged that in the course of his work, he audited the affairs of a nursing home and sought information about who received two cheques.
"I did not receive proper evidence of who received the money in these cheques," he told the WRC.
"From that point onwards, the bullying was instigated by the entire organisation," he added.
"That has led to a systematic redundancy that has been made on me. The fundamental crux of the entire matter is those cheques, they would have to be heard," he went on.
The claim was met by a separately-registered charity, the Brabazon Trust. Its barrister, Emma Davey BL, said Mr Beattie's remarks should be "struck from the record".
Ms Davey had told the tribunal earlier in the proceedings that Mr Beattie had named the "incorrect respondent" by referring his complaint against Protestant Aid.
Her submission was that Mr Beattie had been a contractor providing accountancy technician services for Protestant Aid between 2021 and 2022, but was "never an employee".
He had later held an "entirely different" role as an administrative support officer with Brabazon Trust, she submitted.
Ms Davey also said more time would be needed for the respondent to prepare legal submissions.
Mr Beattie countered that Protestant Aid, the Brabazon Trust and the nursing home in question were all "under the same umbrella" and "run by the same person".
The respondent's position was that Mr Beattie had lodged his claim a fortnight too late for the WRC to have jurisdiction in the matter, and called on the adjudicator to direct the "submissions in relation to the preliminary points alone".
Urging the adjudicator to resolve the matter on the basis of the jurisdictional matters she had raised, Ms Davey pointed out that the respondent was a charity and that the legal fees "could very well be put into something else".
Mr Beattie referred to "some technical issues on the website" and said that as he had been paid his "final wage" on 31 May 2024, he believed his Unfair Dismissals Act complaint of 21 November that year was still within time.
Of the "nine incidents of bullying" alleged in Mr Beattie's complaint form, the first five were outside the cognisable period, the sixth and seventh were partially statute-barred, and only the eighth and ninth alleged incidents could be considered by the WRC, she submitted.
Adjudicator Donal Moore said: "The key for me is, have you been unfairly dismissed or not? That’s on counsel to demonstrate, these [letters] don’t seem relevant. It doesn’t add up, to me," he said.
"Anything about bullying and harassment – it’s just not relevant here," he added.
He has adjourned the matter to a future date.
