Bidvest Noonan, Noonan Services Group Ltd (Represented by Management Support Services (Ireland) Ltd) v Diana Iosif (Represented by Langsch & Cunnane Solicitors)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 06 December 2022
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2022] 12 JIEC 0602
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION ADJ-00027459 CA-00035170-003 DETERMINATION NO. UDD2265 SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)

PARTIES:

Bidvest Noonan, Noonan Services Group Limited (Represented by Management Support Services (Ireland) Limited)

and

Diana Iosif (Represented by Langsch & Cunnane Solicitors)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

UD/22/58

ADJ-00027459 CA-00035170-003

DETERMINATION NO. UDD2265

SECTION 8A, UNFAIR DISMISSAL ACTS, 1977 TO 2015

Full Court

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Ms Doyle

Worker Member: Mr Hall

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S)ADJ-00027459, CA-00035170-003

BACKGROUND:

2 2. This is an appeal by Ms Diana Iosif (‘the Complainant’) from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00027459/CA-00035170-003, dated 22 March 2022) under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 (‘the Act’). Notice of Appeal was received on 24 April 2022. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 17 November 2022.

THE FACTUAL MATRIX

3 The Complainant was employed by Noonan Services Group Limited (now Bidvest Noonan (ROI) Limited) (‘the Respondent’) as a cleaning operative from 5 July 2011 until her resignation on 13 September 2019. At all material times, the Complainant was placed by the Respondent on the St. Vincent's University Hospital site where she worked in the Emergency Room within the Hospital. Between 2011 and approximately September 2018, the duties performed by the Complainant included removing bodily fluids from surfaces using chlorine powder. She had assumed this task formed part of her contractual duties as she had been trained how to do it at the commencement of her employment. However, when she discovered in September 2018 that it was in fact a task that should be done by a healthcare assistant she ceased to do it.

4 The Complainant commenced a period of extended certified sick leave on 2 October 2018 from which she did not return. By letter sent to the Respondent on 17 June 2019, the Complainant outlined the circumstances in which she had been led to believe that the task of cleaning and removing bodily fluids was part of her job. She also referred to an interaction she had had in April 2018 with her then supervisor who instructed her to discontinue the use of chlorine powder. She said she was subsequently informed by her supervisor in September 2018 that the healthcare assistants were responsible for removing and cleaning bodily fluids. The letter of 17 June 2019 also made reference to other work-related issues that are not relevant to the within appeal. The Complainant concluded her letter by requesting that the Respondent furnish her...