Baranya v Rosderra Irish Meats Group Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal pursuant to section 10A of the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977, as amended, challenging a determination of the Labour Court dated 8 April 2019. The Appellant, an employee dismissed on 18 September 2015, claimed his dismissal was unfair due to having made a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. The Labour Court found that the Appellant's communication did not constitute a protected disclosure but rather a grievance. The Appellant sought to set aside this determination on six grounds alleging errors of law and failure to consider relevant evidence. The Respondent opposed the appeal, maintaining the Labour Court's decision was correct.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Labour Court erred in law by requiring a protected disclosure to state an allegation of wrongdoing on the part of the employer.
2. Whether the Labour Court incorrectly classified the Appellant's communication as a grievance rather than a protected disclosure.
3. Whether the Labour Court misinterpreted Statutory Instrument 464/2015 as preventing the communication from being a protected disclosure.
4. Whether the Labour Court failed to consider the full facts and evidence presented.
5. Whether the Labour Court erred by failing to consider the full remit of section 5(3) of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.
6. Whether the Labour Court erred by disregarding the Appellant’s engagement with the Respondent’s Health and Safety Officer concerning health and safety concerns.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Labour Court wrongly read into section 5 of the 2014 Act a requirement that a protected disclosure must state an allegation of employer wrongdoing.
• The communication was wrongly classified as a grievance instead of a protected disclosure.
• The Labour Court misinterpreted the Statutory Instrument 464/2015, treating it as amending the 2014 Act.
• The Labour Court failed to consider the full facts and evidence, including the Appellant’s consultation with the Health and Safety Officer.
• The test for a protected disclosure does not require a public interest element, or alternatively, the endangerment of an employee satisfies such an element.
• The Labour Court omitted significant elements of the Appellant’s communication, including that the pain experienced was work-related.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Labour Court correctly required the disclosure to contain relevant information amounting to wrongdoing, which the Appellant did not disclose.
• The communication was properly determined not to be a protected disclosure but an expression of grievance.
• The Labour Court did not find that the Statutory Instrument amended the 2014 Act.
• The Labour Court correctly applied section 5(3) of the 2014 Act.
• The Labour Court considered all evidence and the Appellant’s complaint amounts to an appeal on the merits.
• The Appellant’s engagement with the Health and Safety Officer did not, by itself or in conjunction with his statement about pain, constitute a protected disclosure.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the Labour Court’s determination that the Appellant’s communication—that he wished to change roles because he was in pain—did not disclose any wrongdoing by the employer and thus was a grievance, not a protected disclosure. The Court found that the Labour Court correctly applied the statutory definition of protected disclosure under section 5 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, which requires that relevant information be disclosed showing one or more relevant wrongdoings reasonably believed by the worker.

The Court rejected the Appellant’s contention that the Labour Court imposed an erroneous requirement that the communication must explicitly state an allegation of wrongdoing. It held that some act or omission by the employer must be attributable to the communication to fulfill the concept of relevant information. The Court found no error in the Labour Court’s approach to the Statutory Instrument 464/2015, nor any failure to consider the full remit of section 5(3) of the 2014 Act.

The Court also addressed the argument regarding the Appellant’s consultation with the Health and Safety Officer, finding that this did not transform the communication into a protected disclosure as it did not amount to information showing wrongdoing. The Court accepted the Labour Court’s factual findings, which were supported by undisputed affidavit evidence, and concluded that the Appellant failed to establish any legal error.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is dismissed.

The Court upheld the Labour Court’s determination that the Appellant’s communication was not a protected disclosure but a grievance. The direct effect is that the Appellant’s claim for unfair dismissal based on protected disclosure fails. No new legal precedent was established beyond affirming the correct interpretation and application of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 and relevant statutory instruments in the circumstances presented.