ADJ-00018796 - Workplace Relations Commission Martin O'Riordan v Abbott Ireland Limited

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 April 2023
• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Docket Number: ADJ-00018796
• Date: 14 April 2023
• Respondent: Abbott Ireland Limited

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.

Background:

The Complainant was employed as a general operative with the Respondent. The Complainant commenced employment on 6th January 2006. On 6th July 2020, the Complainant was dismissed by the Respondent on the grounds of gross misconduct. On 17th December 2018, the Complainant referred the present set of complaint to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that he had suffered a disciplinary sanction for raising health and safety issues in accordance with the Respondent’s own internal procedures. In denying this complaint, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was entitled, if not encouraged, to raised health and safety issues in the course of his employment. They submitted that the disciplinary sanction imposed was done so soley as a result of the Complainant’s misconduct during an interaction with a manager and had nothing to so with any health and safety issues. On 10th September 2019, the Complainant raised a further set of complaints. Herein, he alleged that he had again been penalised, on this occasion by the imposition of a period of suspension, as a consequence of raising health and safety issues. In defending this allegation, the Respondent again submitted that the suspension of the Complainant arose due to a separate issue. Whilst this matter was in progress, the Complainant referred several other complaints, heard under Adjudication References ADJ-00028283 & ADJ-00029045. Evidence in relation to all three sets of complaints were heard over the same two day session, and this decision should be read in conjunction with the above-mentioned. Hearings in relation to these matters were convened for numerous dates across 2019, 2020 and into 2021. Unfortunately, the progress of the matter was initially delayed by the restrictions arising from the Covid-19 pandemic and the difficulty in convening a hearing on foot of the same. Thereafter, following the Judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24, the matter was further adjourned to permit evidence to be taken on oath. Following the Judgement of the High Court in the matter of Burke -v- An Adjudication Officer [2021] IEHC 667, the Adjudication Officer initially designated to hear the matter recused herself from any further involvement in circumstances whereby unsworn testimony had been heard in advance of sworn evidence. As a consequence of the foregoing, the hearing was designated to the present Adjudication Officer to commence anew. Following a case management session, conducted by means of the remote platform, the substantive matter was listed to be heard over three days, falling on 3rd, 4th & 5th October 2022. In advance of the hearing, the parties agreed to exchange a single set of composite submissions. Therein the various issues were summarised into three distinct complaints, an allegation of penaliasation in 2018 (dealt with under this file reference), a further allegation of penalisation in 2019 (also dealt with under under this file reference) and finally an allegation relating to the dismissal of the Complainant, which is discussed under file reference ADJ-00029045. The parties are to be commended for the manner in which they summarised and narrowed the issues in advance of the hearing, resulting in the relevant evidence being presented and opposed within two of the three days assigned. The Complainant gave evidence in support of his complaint. In addition to the same, the Complainant called three other witnesses, to be descried as “General Operative One”,“General Operative Two” and “General Operative Three”. The Respondent called three witnesses in defense of the Complainant. These witnesses are described as follows; “an Operations Manager”, this being the person that imposed the initial disciplinary sanction on the Complainant, “an R&D Supervisor” this being the one of the Complainant’s direct line managers and a “Senior Operations Manager” this being the person that suspended the Complainant from duty. All evidence was given under affirmation and was opened to cross-examination by the opposing side. Preliminary issues as to double recovery were raised at that outset of the hearing. In circumstances whereby these are not determinative of the entire proceedings, they will be discussed following a consideration of the substantive matter.

Summary of the Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant’s employment commenced on 30th January 2006. In or around April 2006, the Complainant’s previous employer was acquired by the Respondent, with the Complainant’s employment transferring to the Respondent on 6th August 2006. The facility at which the Complainant worked produces medical devices, in particular those designed to improve treatment options for those suffering with cardiac issues. The Complainant stated that he took this role very seriously and was at all times conscious of the necessity for adherence to the strictest health and safety standards. The Respondent’s procedures in this regard are contained in a document known as “Manufacturing Process Instructions”. The Complainant was trained in the application of these instructions, with frequent refresher and updating training taking place. As part of these procedures, employees were instructed to become familiar with the “Safety Standard Operating Procedures”. The training in relation to the same dictated that employees who noticed potentially unsafe acts must report the same via means of a “Life Cycle”, a computerised method of reporting. The Complainant dutifully followed this process, identifying numerous health and safety issues he observed in the course of his employment. The Complainant’s performance reviews in 2008, 2009 & 2010 all reflected this commitment to health and safety, with the 2010 review stating that that Complainant was “very safety focused and highlights potential safety issues on an ongoing basis”. The Complainant stated that he noticed a waning in the Respondent’s commitment to adhering to health and safety standards in the final years of his employment. In October 2017, the Complainant’s supervisor began to empathise the importance of meeting increased production targets. The Complainant stated that this was a specific example of what he believed to be a company-wide focus on reaching increased production targets. The Complainant was of the view that such increased production came at the expense of adherence to health and safety protocols. Following some work-related health issues, the Complainant was rotated to various stations within his area. In October 2017, the Complainant queried as to why he was not being assigned to final inspection stations. One of the responses received was that the Complainant could not reach his assigned production targets. In a conversation with his supervisor, the Complainant was given the impression that he could not reach his production target due to his insistence to strict adherence to production protocol. On 3rd November 2017, the Complainant met with HR to advise of the adverse effect the Respondent’s insistence on production quotas was having on him, in addition to bullying by colleagues on foot of his adherence to the Respondent’s policies. The issues described by the Complainant began to have a further adverse effect of his health. On foot of the same, the Complainant was signed off work from November 2017 to the first week of January 2018. On his return to work, the Complainant continued to follow strict health and safety protocol and entered “life cycle” referrals any time he viewed a matter that could constitute a potential health and safety violation. On 5th April 2008, the Complainant entered four individual life cycles in respect of issues he observed whilst undertaking his normal duties. On that date, an R&D Supervisor asked the Complainant to stop raising life cycles as the matter was being addressed. By response, the Complainant advised that the raising of life cycles was in the interests of health and safety and would create a record in the event of an accident. Following this conversation, the Complainant spoke with a senior health and safety manager within the organisation, during this conversation this person confirmed that the Complainant was to raise life cycles when he observed any potential health and safety issue. On 10th April 2008, a second supervisor approached the Complainant and again asked that he stop raising life cycles. Towards the end of his shift, the supervisor again approached the Complainant and again asked him to stop raising life cycles. The supervisor in question followed the Complainant repeating this request, at which point the Complainant asked him to...