The secretary of a Dublin golf club was warned of the risk of being prosecuted for perjury after admitting the book he tried to use to swear a religious oath was not the Holy Bible.

It happened in an online Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) hearing on Wednesday into an unfair dismissal complaint against Skerries Golf Club in Co Dublin by part-time cleaner Donna Ashe. The complaint was brought under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

Ms Ashe, a mother-of-one caring for an adult daughter with a disability, was earning €12.70 an hour for an 18-hour work week, spread over four days, when she was let go in October 2024.

Adjudicating officer Conor Stokes began the online hearing by explaining to the parties that WRC hearings were public, sworn evidence was required and a witness could be prosecuted for perjury if they gave false evidence.

Mr Stokes first administered a secular affirmation to the complainant, Ms Ashe. The golf club’s honorary secretary, businessman Donnacha Neary, said he wished to take a religious oath.

The adjudication officer said the witness would need a Holy Bible for the oath and asked whether he had one. Mr Neary then held up a black book.

“Sorry, I’m just seeing a book, I’m not seeing it’s a Bible,” Mr Stokes said.

“It’s a black book,” Mr Neary said.

“I’m not seeing that it’s titled ‘Bible’. Can you open up the Bible to show me it’s a Bible?” the adjudicator asked.

“I cannot. I don’t have a bible here,” Mr Neary said.

“Then make the affirmation, it makes absolutely no odds to me,” Mr Stokes said.

Mr Neary then said he would give evidence “under affirmation”.

Mr Stokes said: “You understand what I said to you about telling me the truth? You do understand that if you don’t tell me the truth, you could be pursued under the Perjury Act?”

“I do,” Mr Neary replied.

“If in future I ask you a question, I expect and demand the truth,” Mr Stokes said. He then proceeded to administer the secular affirmations to Mr Neary.

Mr Neary gave evidence that a club finance subcommittee, on which he sat, had concluded there was a potential cost saving of €7,500 a year to the club by replacing the cleaners with a serviced contract.

The worker’s barrister, Christian Douglas BL, produced a club document listing the ”benefits” of outsourcing, which included “more accountability on the standards of cleanliness”, he said. He put it to Mr Neary that it was not correct for him to suggest the standard of cleaning was not a factor in the redundancies.

Mr Neary said changing to a third-party operator would give the volunteer in charge of the clubhouse – a “retired gentleman” – a “more direct” path to address cleaning matters. “They can raise matters with one phone call,” he said.

Mr Douglas quoted to the tribunal a WhatsApp group message from a club committee member to Ms Ashe and the other cleaner in May 2024. In it, “cobwebs and insect nests” in the clubhouse porch were complained about ahead of a Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) function.

“If you both continue with this standard of cleaning, we will have to get new cleaners,” the message concluded.

“I have to put it to you the work of the complainant was, in fact, an issue and one of the benefits of redundancy was getting rid of the complainant,” Mr Douglas said.

“Incorrect,” Mr Neary replied. He said the text exchange had been in May and the two cleaners were later invited to come to a meeting to discuss improved cleaning.

“At no time was this dismissal triggered as a result of a performance issue,” he said.

The tribunal heard Mr Neary texted Ms Ashe calling her to an “at-risk meeting”, which took place on September 16th, 2024. She said she “didn’t know what it meant” ahead of time.

When it had been put to Mr Neary that Ms Ashe “didn’t even know she was coming to a redundancy consultation meeting”, Mr Neary said: “I don’t know what more I could do.”

Ms Ashe’s second and final meeting with Mr Neary on September 27th, when she was to be made redundant, lasted five minutes, the complainant said. “Mr Neary had told me there was overheads, but I wasn’t told I could have my hours reduced,” she said.

Mr Neary put it to her in cross-examination that she had the opportunity to “raise any questions or concerns” at the September meeting.

“You didn’t ask me that, no, Mr Neary,” the complainant said.

The adjudicator asked her whether she had proposed alternatives to redundancy at this meeting.

“No, I didn’t Mr Stokes. The decision was made. I don’t know how I could have asked when the decision was made,” Ms Ashe said.

Mr Neary, in a closing submission, said it was a “genuine redundancy arising from a structural business decision to outsource the cleaning function”. Any “procedural shortcomings . . . did not undermine the genuineness of the redundancy”.

Mr Douglas described it as “a sham redundancy – a dismissal as a result of her performance and the cleaners’ performance in general”.

He added: “Not only was it a sham redundancy; the process leading to that redundancy was grossly unfair.”

Mr Stokes is to give his decision in writing at a later date.