An employee raises concerns about their pay.

They also say that something the organisation is doing may be unlawful.

Is it:

• a grievance;
• a contractual pay dispute;
• a protected disclosure; or
• more than one of those at the same time?

A recent Workplace Relations Commission decision involving Maja Goertz and Educatly Ltd shows why HR needs to answer that question before management reacts.

The WRC found that while part of Ms Goertz’s dispute concerned her own pay, her repeated concerns about the taxation of her salary went further.

Those concerns amounted to a protected disclosure.

Her subsequent dismissal was found to amount to penalisation, and she was awarded €10,000.

WRC Case Reference

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00061314
Complainant: Maja Goertz
Respondent: Educatly Ltd
Unfair Dismissal Complaint: CA-00073804-001
Adjudication Officer: Andrew Heavey
Decision Date: 7 September 2026
Outcome: Complaint well founded — €10,000 compensation

The decision also dealt with:

CA-00073804-003 — Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994
Not well founded.

CA-00073804-004 — Payment of Wages Act 1991
Not well founded.

What Happened?

Ms Goertz worked as an account executive for Educatly Ltd from January to July 2025.

She lived in Spain and worked remotely for the Irish company.

According to her evidence to the WRC, she repeatedly raised concerns after being told that she did not have to pay income tax and that her salary would be paid without PAYE or PRSI deductions.

She questioned this because she understood herself to be employed under an Irish employment contract.

A further issue arose when the company proposed a significant reduction in her salary.

The WRC decision records a proposed 60% reduction to her base salary.

Ms Goertz objected to the proposed changes and also raised concerns that the resulting pay would fall below the National Minimum Wage.

She said that after raising the issues she was accused of “extreme behaviour” and told that she should resign because her actions did not align with the organisation’s values.

She refused to resign.

According to the evidence accepted by the WRC, she was then locked out of the organisation’s computer system within approximately one hour and could no longer attend scheduled online meetings.

The respondent did not attend either WRC hearing.

1. Start With What Has Actually Been Raised

The most useful part of ADJ-00061314 for HR is that the WRC did not treat every aspect of the dispute as the same issue.

Adjudication Officer Andrew Heavey recognised that there was an element of personal grievance.

Ms Goertz was objecting to:

• proposed changes to her own salary;
• the level of pay she would personally receive; and
• the possibility that the proposed salary would fall below the National Minimum Wage.

But another issue was also present.

She had repeatedly raised concerns about being told that no income tax or PRSI needed to be deducted from salary paid under her Irish employment contract.

The WRC treated that as a wider issue concerning compliance with the Irish taxation system.

That distinction is what HR needs to identify at the beginning.

An employee’s email may be headed:

“Salary issue”

“Formal grievance”

“Complaint”

or simply:

“Can somebody explain this?”

The heading does not decide the process.

The content does.

2. Separate the Personal Employment Issue From the Wider Allegation

The case gives HR a useful two-part test.

What concerns the employee personally?

For example:

• their salary;
• contractual terms;
• commission;
• hours;
• performance assessment;
• manager relationship; or
• another individual employment entitlement.

Those issues may require a grievance, contractual or ordinary HR process.

What alleged wrongdoing goes beyond the employee personally?

For example:

• breach of a statutory obligation;
• regulatory non-compliance;
• health and safety wrongdoing;
• financial wrongdoing;
• unlawful practices; or
• another matter potentially falling within the Protected Disclosures legislation.

That may require a separate protected-disclosure assessment.

The two can exist at the same time.

HR should not force everything into one procedure simply because it arrived in the same email.

3. Why the Tax Concern Mattered

The WRC specifically distinguished the taxation issue from the employee’s personal pay complaint.

The Adjudication Officer was satisfied that Ms Goertz’s repeated attempts to obtain clarity about the taxation of her salary amounted to a protected disclosure under section 5(3)(b) of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

The issue concerned an alleged failure to comply with a legal obligation.

That is materially different from saying only:

“I disagree with my salary.”

For HR, the practical question should therefore be:

Is the employee simply asking us to resolve something affecting them personally, or are they also giving us information about potential wrongdoing within the organisation?

If the answer may be both, treat both issues separately.

4. Do Not Let the Employee’s Tone Decide the Process

A person raising a serious concern may be:

• frustrated;
• persistent;
• upset;
• direct;
• critical of management; or
• difficult to deal with.

That does not answer whether the information they have disclosed requires protection.

According to Ms Goertz’s evidence, she was accused of “extreme behaviour” after raising the issues and told that she should resign because she did not align with the organisation’s values.

For HR, the first question should not be:

“Do we like how this was raised?”

It should be:

“What exactly has been raised?”

Conduct issues, if genuinely present, can be considered separately.

They should not replace the initial assessment of the underlying concern.

5. Pause Before Taking an Adverse Employment Decision

This does not mean that an employee who raises a protected disclosure cannot subsequently be managed.

Performance, misconduct, restructuring, attendance and other legitimate employment issues may still need to be addressed.

But once a protected disclosure has been identified, HR should carefully review any proposed adverse employment action.

Ask:

When was the decision first considered?

Who proposed it?

What evidence supports it?

Was the issue already documented before the disclosure?

Has the disclosure influenced the people making the decision?

Would we take exactly the same action if the disclosure had never been made?

Those questions become particularly important where the timing is close.

6. The One-Hour Timeline Matters

The chronology in ADJ-00061314 is notable.

Ms Goertz’s evidence was that she was encouraged to resign after raising her concerns.

She declined.

She was then locked out of the company computer system within approximately one hour.

The WRC concluded that her immediate dismissal for raising the issues amounted to penalisation.

That does not mean that timing alone determines every protected-disclosure case.

But from an HR perspective, the closer an adverse decision is to the disclosure, the more important the contemporaneous decision record becomes.

The organisation should be able to show:

• what decision was made;
• when it was first considered;
• who made it;
• what evidence was relied upon;
• what business reason existed;
• what alternatives were considered; and
• why the disclosure was not the reason for the action.

7. Decide Who Owns Each Process

A mixed complaint should not automatically be handed to one manager to resolve from beginning to end.

HR should identify separate ownership.

Personal grievance or contractual issue

Who will deal with the employee’s pay or contractual complaint?

Protected disclosure

Who will assess whether a protected disclosure has been made?

Underlying wrongdoing

Who should investigate the alleged wrongdoing?

Employment decision

Who will decide any separate performance, disciplinary or dismissal issue?

The same people should not automatically control every part of the process.

Particular care is required where somebody involved in the alleged wrongdoing is also involved in deciding what happens to the employee who raised it.

8. Protect the Decision-Making Chain

Where an employee has raised a potential protected disclosure, HR should preserve a clear chronology.

Record:

• when the concern was first raised;
• what information was provided;
• who received it;
• how it was classified;
• who was informed;
• what assessment followed;
• what investigation was commenced;
• what employment decisions were already underway;
• who made those decisions; and
• what evidence supported them.

This is not simply administrative record-keeping.

If a WRC claim follows, those records may become the evidence showing whether the employment decision had an independent basis.

9. Be Careful About Asking the Employee to Resign

Another feature of the decision is the complainant’s evidence that she was told she should resign.

That creates an obvious HR risk where the conversation follows immediately after alleged wrongdoing has been raised.

Comments such as:

“Perhaps this is no longer the right organisation for you.”

“Maybe you should consider leaving.”

or

“Your approach does not align with our values.”

should not become a substitute for dealing with the issue that has actually been raised.

If management genuinely has concerns about the employment relationship, those concerns require their own factual basis and appropriate process.

10. Remote Work Can Make Poor Process Very Fast

There is another useful operational lesson in the case.

Ms Goertz worked remotely.

For remote workers, an organisation can remove access almost instantly.

IT can:

• disable email;
• remove Microsoft 365 access;
• revoke Slack or Teams access;
• suspend CRM access;
• disable passwords;
• cancel meetings; or
• remove access to shared systems.

Technically, that may take seconds.

From an employment-process perspective, the consequences can be significant.

Before instructing IT to remove access, HR should be clear what the action represents.

Is it:

• suspension;
• termination;
• an interim security measure;
• garden leave;
• restricted duties; or
• another temporary measure?

The employee should not have to infer that they have been dismissed because their login stops working.

11. Not Every Claim Succeeded

The official decision contains another useful HR lesson.

Ms Goertz also brought complaints under:

CA-00073804-003 — Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994

and

CA-00073804-004 — Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Neither complaint was upheld.

The reason was practical.

The proposed salary reduction had not actually taken effect.

Once Ms Goertz raised her concerns, access to the organisation’s computer system was removed and the employment relationship ended.

The WRC therefore found that the proposed change had not taken place for the purpose of the Terms of Employment claim and no actual wage deduction had occurred for the Payment of Wages claim.

That reinforces an important investigation principle:

Different legal complaints arising from the same facts still need to be assessed separately.

One successful complaint does not make every related allegation successful.

12. Respondent Non-Attendance Is Also Part of the Story

Educatly Ltd did not attend the initial adjudication hearing or the reconvened hearing.

The official decision records that the respondent had been notified at its Dublin address and at the address in Egypt where its principal resided.

That meant the organisation did not present evidence explaining:

• its position on the taxation issue;
• the proposed pay change;
• the reason system access was removed;
• the reason the employment relationship ended; or
• its response to the alleged protected disclosure.

For HR teams dealing with a WRC complaint, hearing preparation matters.

The hearing should not be the first time the organisation asks:

What happened?

Who made the decision?

Where are the records?

Who needs to give evidence?

Those questions should be answered much earlier.

A Practical HR Triage

When an employee raises something that may involve wrongdoing, ask:

What has actually been disclosed?

Ignore the subject line initially. Read the substance.

Is there a personal employment issue?

Identify the appropriate grievance or contractual process.

Is there an allegation of wider wrongdoing?

Assess whether the protected-disclosure procedure may apply.

Are both present?

Consider separate processes.

Who owns each process?

Identify appropriate decision-makers and investigate conflicts.

Is employment action already being considered?

Review the chronology before proceeding.

Would we make the same decision without the disclosure?

Be able to evidence the answer.

What evidence needs to be preserved?

Keep correspondence, payroll information, meeting notes, system records and decision records.

Who may ultimately need to give evidence?

Identify the people who actually made or communicated the relevant decisions.

The €10,000 WRC Outcome

Maja Goertz v Educatly Ltd

ADJ-00061314

CA-00073804-001

Adjudication Officer Andrew Heavey found the unfair-dismissal complaint well founded.

The WRC was satisfied that Ms Goertz’s repeated attempts to obtain clarity about the taxation of her salary constituted a protected disclosure.

It was also satisfied that her immediate dismissal for raising the issues amounted to penalisation.

The respondent was directed to pay:

€10,000

The Terms of Employment and Payment of Wages complaints contained in the same adjudication were not upheld.

The Practical Lesson for HR

The difficult workplace issues are often the ones that do not fit neatly into one category.

A pay dispute can also contain a protected disclosure.

A grievance can reveal alleged wrongdoing.

A protected disclosure can arise while legitimate management issues are also ongoing.

The answer is not to force everything into one procedure.

Start with:

What exactly has been raised?

Then decide:

What concerns the employee personally?

What potentially concerns wider wrongdoing?

What needs to be investigated?

Which employment processes can continue independently?

Who should own each part?

And:

Can we demonstrate why any later employment decision was made?

Process selection is part of risk management.

How Employment Matters Can Help

Employment Matters supports employers in deciding how complex workplace issues should be handled before the wrong process creates a bigger problem.

This may include:

• independent workplace investigations;
• protected-disclosure process support;
• performance management;
• manager training and workshops;
• workplace mediation;
• defending employment claims;
• redundancy and dismissal processes; and
• practical advice on separating overlapping workplace procedures.

Where specialist legal advice is required in relation to a protected disclosure or employment claim, appropriate legal input should also be obtained.

This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.