Prepare a case note on the following decision:Baranya v Rosderra Irish Meats Group Ltd [2021] IESC 77, [2022] 33 ELR 73.*You must refer to the judgments of both Hogan and Charleton JJ*Remember, in a...

1 answer below »
Prepare a case note on the following decision:
Baranya v Rosderra Irish Meats Group Ltd [2021] IESC 77, [2022] 33 ELR 73.
*You must refer to the judgments of both Hogan and Charleton JJ*
Remember, in a case-note you should make sure to clearly set out:
o The facts of the case – what is the dispute about?
o The procedural history – what did the various courts before this one decide
about the case?
o The decision – what did this court decide?
o The reasoning – what explanation did the judges give for their decision? What
were the main authorities on which they relied? Which facts were most
important in leading the court to the conclusion that it reached? What was the
ratio decidendi – the specific legal conclusion that the case turns on or
establishes?
o Your analysis – what do you think and want to say about the case? This could
include various things, including: How convincing do you find the court’s
reasoning? Did they get it right? If not, why not? Are there other ways the court
might have reached a similar conclusion? Is the result fair to everyone involved?
How well does the case fit with other relevant legal principles? What impact
has the case had / might the case have on the law in other situations? What effect
might the case have on the ways that individuals / organisations etc. conduct
their business in future? Is that a good or a bad thing?
3
This assessment is designed to test how well you can read, understand, summarise, and analyse
a court decision. Keep in mind that you should summarise the facts of the case as briefly as
possible and only for the purpose of highlighting key issues and the approach of the court. You
should also provide a brief overview of the procedural history of this case. The principal
objective of this assessment is to test how you can identify and highlight the key issues in the
case and how they were resolved. You should thus indicate how the court framed the issues
and how it came to its conclusion on them. The higher marks will go to those who offer critical
analysis and evaluation of the decision and draw out the theoretical and practical implications.
One of the key aspects which distinguishes between a good, very good, and excellent case note
is the ability to not only summarise and restate the court’s holdings and resolution of a
particular legal dispute, but to engage in critical analysis of the decision’s impact on the
relevant area of law.
Answered 1 days AfterNov 07, 2022

Answer To: Prepare a case note on the following decision:Baranya v Rosderra Irish Meats Group Ltd [2021] IESC...

Tarun answered on Nov 08 2022
45 Votes
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
Mr Baranya (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant”) was an employee from Hungary who worked as a competent butcher for Rosderra Irish Meats Group Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Company/the Respondent”). He left his employm
ent in June 2015 to either return to Hungary or look for work in the Netherlands. However, a few weeks after his contract expired, the Appellant requested a reinstatement. In July 2015, he returned to work at the Respondent. He claimed he was brought back on a permanent basis, while the Respondent stated it was only a 12-week contract. In September 2015, the Appellant complained to his employer, the Respondent, about pain and his desire to no longer score meat. There was some disagreement over what the Appellant actually said. Furthermore, the Respondent claimed that he told his employer that he was in a lot of discomfort because of the labour he had to do and sought to be transferred to another position. The Respondent asserted that he just mentioned that he was in discomfort and did not say it was because of his job. After walking off the production line three days later, the Appellant was fired. He filed an Unfair Dismissals Act claim against the Respondent in the WRC. He did not, however, have 12 months' service because he left his position in June 2015. The Appellant contended that because he was fired for making a protected disclosure about the discomfort he was experiencing while performing his job, he was exempt from the need of 12 months' service to pursue his claim.
THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
· WORKPLACE RELATIONS COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS: The Appellant initially filed a claim with the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as “WRC”) against an Adjudication Officer ((hereinafter referred to as “AO”) for unfair dismissal based on making a protected disclosure. The AO ruled against the Appellant because his complaint was a personal grievance rather than a protected disclosure.
· LABOUR COURT: The Appellant then filed an appeal before the Labour Court, which also determined that the communication in question did not constitute a protected disclosure because it did not reveal any wrongdoing on Respondent’s part, and that the communication in question was an expression of a grievance rather than a protected disclosure. The Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on the Protected Disclosure Act 2014) Declaration Order 2015 appears to have affected the Labour Court's determination that it was a grievance (the Code)....
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here