Ex-2FM broadcaster Chris Greene claims RTÉ sacked him after he reported allegations of sexual harassment

Former 2FM presenter Chris Greene claims he was penalised as a whistleblower and then sacked by RTÉ after he made allegations about sexual harassment in the workplace and complained to the authorities about his employment status, the Workplace Relations Commission has heard.

Little detail was made public at a preliminary hearing on Monday morning into complaints brought by Mr Greene against the State broadcaster under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977; the Protected Disclosures Act, 2014, and the Payment of Wages Act, 1994.

However, his barrister, David Byrnes BL, did say his client had gone to 2FM chief Dan Healy with concerns regarding “alleged sexual harassment and impropriety in the workplace”.

He said his client had been penalised by being marginalised at work prior to dismissal – and told adjudicator Breiffní O’Neill today: “The dismissal is an unfair dismissal in the ordinary sense, and I am also suggesting there is a penalisation element to it as well.”

Michael Harding: A funeral reminds me of the sweetness of silence, when conversation was more than just chatter

---

The Fall Guy review: Who ordered a half-baked revival of a Lee Majors TV show? Anyone?

---

Inside the early morning operation to move asylum seekers from Mount Street encampment

---

Dave Hannigan: Grotesque Tyson-Paul spectacle the very antithesis of a real sporting event

---

The Workplace Relations Commission heard RTÉ is appealing a determination by the Department of Social Protection’s Scope section which found that Mr Greene was in insurable employment at the relevant time.

Mr Byrnes said the referral to Scope had been a second protected disclosure on the part of his client.

In legal submissions, contesting the case, RTÉ's barrister Mairead McKenna SC, appearing instructed by Arthur Cox, said the broadcaster “disputed [Mr Greene] was an employee” and that the claim for penalisation set out in legal submissions by the complainant’s legal team was “not clear”.

Ms McKenna said the stance adopted by the complainant side was “grossly unfair”.

“There is nothing in the written submission that says there’s another protected disclosure … We can’t go through every document and dream up what the complainant’s case might be,” she said.

“It’s too serious for that. We’re entitled to know what it is,” she said.

Mr Byrnes also advanced the argument that because his client’s employment status had already been determined by the Department of Social Protection, the WRC had “no jurisdiction” to rule on the same matter – though he accepted it might be the first time that argument had been advanced before the tribunal.

“[My client is] here with a legitimate expectation that [he is] an employee,” he said.

Mr O’Neill, the adjudicator, told Mr Greene’s barrister that RTÉ had been “caught on the hop” by his legal submissions.

“This is quite novel, your claim that the WRC doesn’t have jurisdiction to determine employment status. More importantly, the actual connection between alleged protected disclosures and alleged penalisation, this is not set out in the submissions at all,” Mr O’Neill said.

Mr Byrnes said he had not set out the disclosures in writing because “the nature of those protected disclosures was such that it was preferable and appropriate for them to be first brought into this room for the protection of my client and other witnesses”.

He cited the fact that there was “no protection against defamation” under the protected disclosures legislation and said he had wanted the matter in the hands of the WRC “so that no other party can then come along and make all sorts of allegations and make legal threats against my client”.

He said the “sensitivity” of the matter was that his client had raised “alleged sexual harassment and impropriety in the workplace”.

Mr O’Neill said: “If there are sensitivities, an application can be made to hear it in private, names can be anonymised, but the respondent needs to be presented with all the information.”

He said the respondent needed to know the dates of the alleged protected disclosures and alleged acts of penalisation and the names of any staff accused of perpetrating the penalisation, and directed the complainant side to make further submissions in writing by mid-December.

He has given RTÉ until mid-January to respond and adjourned the matter, with the next hearing date to be confirmed in due course by the WRC.

Up to five witnesses, including Mr Greene, are expected to give evidence in the course of the case.