LAUREN KIERANS 317 Appellant to a question from a manager as regards a work payment claim; and the sixth disclosure was argued to be a complaint by the Appellant as regards the fitness of two fire-fighters to carry out their duties by reason of physical capacity issues. The Appellant contended that as a result of said disclosures he suffered penalisation in the form of an undermining of his position as a manager, tension at the fire station, insubordination and the omission by the management of the service to respond appropriately to his complaints. The Court was of the opinion that s 5(5) was relevant to the proceedings before it and on taking this section into consideration held that: The complaints which are alleged to be protected disclosures in the within case (a) could not reasonably be argued to be outside of the function of a Station officer in the Fire Service to detect, and (b) relate to matters other than an alleged omission of the Employer. on a plain reading of the Act therefore the Court finds that the complaint made by the Appellant in this case is misconceived. The complaints made by the Appellant in pursuance of his duties as Station officer were not Protected Disclosures within the meaning of the Act.18 on reaching this conclusion, the Court held further that there was no necessity to examine whether or not the Appellant had been subjected to penalisation as it had been determined that no protected disclosure had been made.19 This determination is troublesome as it sets a precedent that workers who are in managerial positions are considered to be employed to detect wrongdoing and therefore cannot avail of the protections under the Act when they raise concerns of wrongdoing. It cannot have been intended by the drafters of the Act to impose such restrictions on the scope of the protections contained therein. The Act was given a "plain reading" by the Court but it is arguable that a purposive approach to the Act should have been taken, that being to provide protection to as broad a range of workers as possible. 3. Legal Professional Privilege A disclosure is not a protected disclosure if a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in respect of it in legal proceedings and it is made by a person to whom the information was disclosed in the course of obtaining legal advice.20 Therefore, if a protected disclosure is made to a barrister, solicitor or trade union official as provided for under s 9 in the course of obtaining legal advice and it is further disclosed by the barrister or 18. ibid. at 4. 19. ibid. 20. Protected Disclosures Act 2014, s 5(6).