The issue of covert audio recordings continues to feature in Irish employment disputes, particularly in the context of disciplinary processes, grievances and dismissals. As AI becomes embedded in everyday life and business practices, the use of covert recordings is becoming increasingly common. Recent Workplace Relations Commission (‘WRC’) decisions confirm that there is no blanket prohibition on the use of covert recordings in employment claims; admissibility depends on the specific facts of each case.
Leading Case Law
The Equality Tribunal decision in Laurentiu Eugen Iacob v The Central Hotel (DEC‑E2010‑147) remains a key authority and is still regularly relied upon in WRC hearings. In this case, an employee covertly recorded a conversation with a manager and sought to rely on it in support of discrimination and harassment claims. The employer objected on privacy and data protection grounds. The Tribunal admitted the recording, finding that the seriousness of the allegations and the relevance of the evidence outweighed the objections raised. Importantly, the decision confirms that alleged breaches of privacy or data protection law do not automatically render evidence inadmissible in employment proceedings.
Kennedy v Trinity College Dublin
In the recent case of Niall Kennedy v The Provost, Fellows, Foundation Scholars and the other Members of Board of Trinity College Dublin (ADJ‑00051570), the WRC considered the admissibility of covert recordings made by an employee in the context of a dispute concerning his contract renewal.
The Complainant, a lecturer employed on a series of fixed‑term contracts, covertly recorded conversations with senior academic colleagues regarding his future employment prospects. The Respondent objected to the admission of those recordings, arguing that they had been made without the knowledge or consent of those involved and were contrary to the University’s data protection rules.
The Adjudication Officer (‘AO’) admitted the recordings into evidence, accepting the Complainant’s position that they were necessary to vindicate his legal rights. The recordings were found to corroborate the existence of internal discussions and an email indicating an internal concern about appointing individuals who might acquire an entitlement to a contract of indefinite duration.
While acknowledging that covert recordings can erode trust and damage professional relationships, the AO treated this as a material but not determinative factor. The focus remained on relevance and probative value in the circumstances of the case.
The decision reinforces the established WRC approach that covert recordings are not automatically excluded from employment proceedings, notwithstanding objections based on privacy or data protection. Where such recordings are relevant, proportionate and directed at substantiating serious allegations, the WRC may admit them, even while recognising their potential impact on workplace relationships.
Key Takeaways
For employers, this case highlights the risk that internal communications and informal discussions may later be scrutinised through covertly obtained evidence and underscores the importance of ensuring that decision‑making is consistent, documented and legally robust.
If you have any queries in relation to the above, please reach out to your usual Littler contact.
