A mental health programme for farmers was left “floundering” last year because of a “toxic” falling-out between a former president of Macra na Feirme and the staff member delivering it, a tribunal was told.
Details of the row were disclosed in a Workplace Relations Commission decision this week rejecting a claim of whistleblower penalisation by the former employee, programme director Conor Holohan.
Mr Holohan had alleged in a complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 that because he accused the ex-president of bullying him, he had his probation extended and was ultimately forced to quit.
Mr Holohan, a social science graduate from a farming background, was hired by Macra in October 2024 as the manager for a positive mental health programme called “Make the Moove”, aimed at tackling suicide in the farming community, the WRC heard.
It had been a volunteer operation, but was being expanded with grant aid from insurer FBD and the Department of Agriculture to the farming youth organisation, the tribunal heard.
Mr Holohan, who was still under probation, was managing a free helpline and delivering mental health talks nationwide, the tribunal heard. Mr Holohan called it a “one-man operation”.
He said in evidence that the elected president of Macra in place at the time of his employment – who was not named in yesterday’s decision – treated him in a “bullying and undermining” manner.
In a legal submission, Peter Dunlea, appearing for Macra on behalf of Peninsula Business Services, said Make the Moove was “floundering”, and its difficulties were “because of interpersonal issues between the complainant and the president”.
The complainant said there were issues in his professional relationship with the ex-president “from day one” but matters “deteriorated further” in December 2024. He told the WRC he was being “sabotaged” in his delivery of the programme.
Mr Holohan wrote to the CEO and deputy CEO of Macra on 27 March 2025 describing the then-president’s actions as “a sustained pattern of undermining, obstruction, inappropriate conduct, and bullying”.
Giving evidence, CEO Michael Curran said he thought there was “some merit” to Mr Holohan’s complaint and that he was not surprised to receive it.
“The relationship between the two was deteriorating badly, and the conflict was becoming apparent to the members,” he said. He said the difficulties between Mr Holohan and the president “were putting the programme in jeopardy”.
Mr Curran and Mr Holohan met on 3 April 2025, six days after the bullying complaint, and three days before the complainant’s six-month probation period was due to expire.
Mr Curran told the WRC he was concerned that Mr Holohan was unable to work with volunteers or “work around issues” and that his probation was being extended on this basis.
He did not say this at the meeting because Mr Holohan was “in shock” to be told of the extension and he “didn’t want to go hard” on him, Mr Curran said.
Mr Holohan quoted Mr Curran telling him at the meeting that Macra had “different limbs” and that the CEO was “ready to cut off Make the Moove”.
When this was put to Mr Curran, he said it sounded like something he would say.
The witness denied that any threat to close the programme was in response to the bullying complaint, but said the relationship between Mr Holohan and the ex-president was “toxic” and had to be looked at.
Mr Holohan went on certified sick leave a few days later and ultimately quit on 27 June 2025, the WRC heard.
In her decision, adjudicator Catherine Byrne wrote that the closeness in time between the bullying complaint and the extension of Mr Holohan’s probation meant the complainant had “grounds for concern”, she wrote.
However, she found the CEO had valid reasons for the extension, namely Mr Holohan’s “inability to collaborate with the president” and his “tendency not to seek approval”.
The extension of probation was not penalisation, and there was no further penalisation during Mr Holohan’’ sick leave either, Ms Byrne found.
“While the complainant was entitled to resign for the sake of his mental health, he is not entitled to hold his employer responsible for his mental health,” Ms Byrne wrote.
“The complainant dismissed himself, and it is my view that it was not reasonable for him to do so and to claim that he was constructively dismissed,” she wrote.
