LAUREN KIERANS 325 had been dismissed pending the determination by the Workplace Relations Commission or settlement of their unfair dismissal claims. The Applicants alleged that as a result of their disclosure to Revenue they were subjected to bullying and harassment and were made redundant by the Respondent. This assertion was rejected by the Respondent who argued that their redundancy arose as a result of a decision by the Board following a review into the company by an external consultant, at the behest of the Respondent. This review ultimately determined in April 2016 that the roles of the Applicants and another employee were no longer required on the basis that there was significant duplication between their roles and other roles in the company. The Respondent also argued that the fact that another employee, who co-signed the disclosure to Revenue, had not been selected for redundancy was indicative that the redundancy of the two Applicants was based solely on operational grounds. Judge Comerford held that he could not find that the Applicants' dismissal was wholly or mainly due to the protected disclosure they had made to the Revenue on the evidence presented to him. However, he held that the claimants did meet the threshold of establishing that there were substantial grounds for contending that the dismissal of the Applicants was wholly or mainly due to the protected disclosure. The Respondent refused to reinstate the two Applicants in the positions from which they had been dismissed but offered re-engagement in different positions to both. These offers were rejected by both Applicants and Judge Comerford held that the rejection of this offer was reasonable on the basis that the offers made by the Respondent were in contravention of Sch. 1, s 2(3)(b) of the Act which provides that the terms and conditions of the position offered in re-engagement must not be less favourable than those which would have been applicable to the employee if he or she had not been dismissed. Judge Comerford made an order for the continuation of the Applicants'contracts of employment from the date of termination until the determination or settlement of the dispute. It is interesting to note in this case that the Respondent did not appear to contend that the disclosure was not a protected disclosure for the purposes of the Act but argued that the dismissal of both Applicants was based solely on operational grounds and did not result wholly or mainly from their making of a protected disclosure. 3. Tort action Workers, employees and third parties have a cause of action in tort against a person who causes detriment to them because they, or another person, have