The numbers that should concern every Irish HR Director
In 2023, the Workplace Relations Commission saw a 201% increase in protected disclosure related claims compared to the year before. Lawyers who work in this space are reporting a further rise in 2024. The trend is not slowing down.
This is not a statistical anomaly. It reflects the combination of a significantly strengthened legal framework under the Protected Disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022, growing employee awareness of their rights, and - critically - a growing number of organisations that do not have adequate internal channels in place. When employees cannot raise concerns internally through a channel they trust, they go elsewhere. And "elsewhere" now has more power than it ever did.
Why claims are rising: three reasons
The Act significantly strengthened employee protections. The 2022 Act reversed the burden of proof in penalisation cases - where an employer takes action against an employee who has made a protected disclosure, that penalisation is now presumed to have occurred unless the employer can prove otherwise. This is a fundamental shift. Previously, the employee had to prove they were penalised because of their disclosure. Now, the employer has to prove they were not.
The scope of who can make a disclosure has widened substantially. Under the 2022 Act, the categories of protected persons now extend beyond employees to include volunteers, unpaid trainees, board members, shareholders, and job applicants. More people can now make protected disclosures than at any point in the history of Irish employment law.
Employees are more aware of their rights. There has been significant publicity around the new regime, including the establishment of the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner. Employees who previously would not have known the term "protected disclosure" now have access to clear guidance on what it means and how to use it.
When employees cannot raise concerns internally through a channel they trust, they go elsewhere. And elsewhere now has significantly more power than it did before 2023.
The pattern lawyers are seeing
Employment lawyers who advise organisations on protected disclosures have identified a consistent pattern in the cases they are handling. Employees who feel they have no safe internal channel tend to use the external route - the WRC, the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner, or the relevant prescribed regulator - as a first resort rather than a last one.
The implication for organisations is direct: a functioning, trusted internal reporting channel is not just a compliance obligation. It is a practical mechanism that gives employees somewhere to go that is not a regulatory body. When the internal channel does not exist, or is not trusted, the regulatory route becomes the obvious alternative.
There is also a secondary pattern worth noting. Lawyers have observed a rise in protected disclosures being raised by employees who are facing disciplinary processes or performance management. The 2022 Act does not prevent an employer from managing performance, but it significantly complicates the process when a protected disclosure has been made by the same employee. Organisations with no clear, documented internal channel find it harder to demonstrate that a disclosure was received, investigated properly, and that subsequent management actions were entirely unrelated to it.
What the WRC data is telling you
A 201% increase in claims is not primarily a sign that more wrongdoing is happening in Irish workplaces. It is a sign that more employees know they have rights, more employees are willing to exercise them, and more organisations are being caught without adequate internal processes. The organisations that have functioning internal channels - ones that employees actually trust and use - are seeing concerns resolved internally. The organisations without them are seeing those concerns appear at the WRC.
What "adequate" actually means in practice
The Act requires organisations to establish, maintain, and operate internal reporting channels that are secure, confidential, and accessible to all employees. It requires written acknowledgement of disclosures within seven days, follow-up within three months, and a designated person responsible for managing the process. It requires an audit trail.
What it does not specify - but what is becoming clear from the pattern of cases - is that a channel nobody trusts or uses provides very limited practical protection. An organisation can have a technically compliant whistleblowing email address and still find itself at the WRC when an employee decides the channel is not genuinely confidential and goes directly to an external authority.
Genuine compliance - the kind that actually reduces the risk of external claims - requires a channel that employees believe is anonymous, independent of the organisation's own systems, and operated by someone with no stake in the outcome. That is a higher bar than the Act's minimum requirements, but it is the bar that actually changes employee behaviour.