At a Glance
A 57% increase in reports to the OPDC last year is linked, in part, to a trend we have written about before – the growing use of AI by individuals engaging with legal and regulatory processes. For employers, understanding that trend, alongside the report’s other findings, matters more than the headline figure.
The Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner (‘OPDC‘) has published its Annual Report for 2025. The report provides insight into the operation of Ireland’s protected disclosures regime under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 (as amended) (the ‘Act‘). The headline figure for 2025 is striking – 411 reports received, up from 262 in 2024, an increase of 57%. The OPDC’s function is to receive reports of workplace wrongdoing and transmit them to the body best placed to follow up, typically a sector regulator or other ‘prescribed person’. Reports can reach the OPDC directly from a worker, a Government Minister or a prescribed person who considers another body better placed to act. Only where no appropriate recipient can be identified does the OPDC accept and follow up on a report itself, acting as recipient of last resort.
More Reports, Not More Wrongdoing
The Commissioner is explicit that he does not believe the increase reflects a major increase in workplace wrongdoing. Rather, the report notes that many reports received through protected disclosures channels are, in substance, employee grievances, interpersonal disputes or complaints from individuals dissatisfied with how another body has dealt with a matter.
A Familiar Trend: AI is Compounding the Problem
One of the more interesting observations in the report concerns the increasing use of AI. The OPDC notes a growing tendency among reporting persons to use AI tools when preparing reports. According to the Commissioner, these reports are often longer, more voluminous and contain significant amounts of information unrelated to the alleged wrongdoing. Some also contain incorrect legal references or AI “hallucinations“.
This mirrors a trend we have considered previously in the employment law context (see here and here), where AI-generated submissions have appeared before both the WRC and Labour Court. While AI can undoubtedly assist individuals in preparing reports and submissions, the report serves as a reminder that professionally presented or legally styled documents should not automatically be equated with merit. For employers receiving disclosures, the focus should remain on identifying the substance of the concern rather than being distracted by the volume or presentation of the material.
Persistent Misunderstanding of the Act
The report also highlights a number of recurring misunderstandings about the purpose of the Act. Reporting persons often assume that the legislation provides prospective protection from the moment they make a disclosure, whereas any alleged breach of those protections falls to be determined retrospectively by the WRC, Labour Court or courts. The Commissioner also observes that some reporters expect a detailed explanation of how their report is handled or seek “fair procedures” in what they regard as their own investigation. The report emphasises that the purpose of the protected disclosures regime is to facilitate the reporting of wrongdoing, not to create an adjudicative process for reporters themselves.
Increased Complaints Against Employers
It will be interesting to see if the upwards trend of whistleblowing reports made to the Office of the Protected Disclosures Commissioner continues. In terms of the broader context for employers it is worth noting that WRC complaints in this area also increasing. Redress was sought in the WRC under the Protected Disclosures Act 378 times in 2025. This is compared with 271 in 2024. This is also a significant increase. The WRC reports annually so we will have to wait and see if the upwards trajectory increases in step with the rapidly increasing adoption by claimants of AI in 2026.
Key Takeaways
The report is perhaps best understood not as evidence of increasing workplace wrongdoing, but as evidence of increasing use of the protected disclosures framework itself. For employers, the key lesson is that disclosures are arriving in growing numbers and, increasingly, in AI-assisted formats. Those responsible for handling reports should be trained to separate genuine disclosures from grievances, focus on substance over presentation and maintain clear records of how concerns are assessed and addressed. With compensation for penalisation capable of reaching five years’ remuneration, these remain high-stakes obligations for employers.
