Covidien Ireland Ltd (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation) v David Hogan (Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 09 July 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 7 JIEC 0902
• Date: 09 July 2018
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Docket Number: ADJ-00003168 CA-00004580-002,DETERMINATION NO. HSD181,FULL RECOMMENDATION

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

HSC/18/7

DETERMINATION NO. HSD181

ADJ-00003168 CA-00004580-002

PARTIES:

Covidien Ireland Limited (Represented by Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)

and

David Hogan (Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)

DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Ms Connolly

Worker Member: Ms Treacy

SECTION 29 (1), SAFETY HEALTH AND WELFARE AT WORK ACTS, 2005 TO 2014

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No: ADJ-00003168.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. An Adjudication Officer's hearing took place on 6 December 2017 and a Decision was issued on 27 March 2018.

3 The Worker appealed the Decision of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court on 4 May 2018. A Labour Court hearing took place on 29 June 2018.

DETERMINATION:

4 This matter came before the Court by way of an appeal by Mr David Hogan (‘the Complainant’) against a decision of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00003168/CA-00004580-002, dated 27 March 2018) under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 (‘the Act’). The Adjudication Officer held that the Complainant's claim that he had been penalised within the meaning of section 27 of the Act was not well-founded. The Complainant's Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 4 May 2018. The Court heard the appeal in Dublin on 29 June 2018.

5 The Complainant has been employed by Covidien Ireland Limited (‘the Respondent’) as a General Operator since 18 July 2005. In December 2015 he was assigned to carry out screening checks on two production lines simultaneously. The practice of assigning Operators to two lines simultaneously had been in place for over a year at this stage and none of the Complainant's colleagues had raised any issues about it. The Complainant refused to carry out the instruction he had received as he believed the practice gave rise to quality issues. The Respondent made a number of attempts to assuage the Complainant's concerns: for example, it deployed both a process engineer and a quality engineer to address specific quality assurance issues raised by the Complainant.

6 The Complainant completed the combined task as instructed on 4, 5 and 6 January 2016. However, on the latter date he submitted a letter to his Supervisor setting out his concerns. The Respondent initiated a disciplinary process in response to the Complainant's refusal to carry out the tasks assigned to him. This culminated in the Complainant receiving a written warning....