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...

2
BARANYA VS ROSDERRA IRISH MEATS GROUP LTD
Table of Contents
Facts    3
Procedural History    3
Decision of the Courts    4
Reasoning    4
Analysis    5
References    8
Facts
This case relates to the aspects of a plaintiff who was employed as a butcher in a meat factory. Mr. Baranya, a Hungarian national, was employed as a skilled butcher in Rosderra Irish Meats Group Ltd. (Rosderra) since 2000. In 2015, during the month of June Mr. Baranya left Rosderra on the basis of a compromise agreement such that he could return to Hungary or take a different employment in the Netherlands. After a week he was informed that his plans were not approved and thereby he was allowed to resume his work in July 2015. His job was involved in the aspects of scoring that were developed in terms of the carcasses of the daily workings which the plaintiff alleges caused him significant pain. Mr. Baranya who filed the case was in considerable pain on 15th September 2015 when he requested a change in his role in the workplace.
This was the initial point of the dispute regarding the aspect that whether he said that he was in pain because of the work or he mentioned just that he was in pain. The exact words that were communicated are a matter of dispute. The major aspect of the entire case was whether the plaintiff was in pain as a result of work or he was simply in pain and his job has got nothing to do with it. After three days of such claims in the change of his role, he was dismissed.
This was addressed and alleged because he made a protected disclosure on 15th September that was in relation to health and safety. The company issued that it was because of the fact that he refused to do any work and walked off the product line.
Procedural History
Mr. Baranya initially processed before the Adjudication Officer in the Workplace Relations Commission and filed a complaint in terms of the unfair dismissal that came up due to the protected disclosure on 8th October 2015 under the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977 to 2015. The officer investigated and it was found that it was against the plaintiff as his complaints were more effective in the form of personal grievances as opposed to the protector disclosure. So, this case was more relevant in terms of the Protected Disclosures Act, of 2014[footnoteRef:1]. The aspect was more apparent in terms of the fact that the 1977 Act was not applied to employees who have less than 1 year of continuous service with the employer who dismissed them. The AO rejected the complaint on the ground that the dismissal resulted from having made a protected disclosure. It was a matter of explanation that the pain that he was experiencing in the product line had to be made a serious distinction on the lines of grievances and protected disclosure. [1: Hogan, Benn Finlay, M. L. Rhodes, Susan P. Murphy, and Mary Lawlor. "IRISH BUSINESS & HUMAN RIGHTS." (2019).
]
After this, the plaintiff appealed to the Labor Court and it was appealed on the basis of section 8A of the 1977 Act. In the Labor Court also the communication in question did not constitute a part of projected disclosure because in that particular communication there was no such aspect that mentioned the wrongdoings of the employer Rosderra. In this particular proceeding, the communication was referred to as an act of grievance and not that of a protected disclosure.
Later the case was upheld by the High Court where Ms. Justice O’Regan found that the appellant had failed to establish the error of law on the part of the Labor Court[footnoteRef:2]. Thereafter the Supreme Court began the analysis by examining the aspects that constitute the Protected Disclosure and the fact that the complaints on the grounds of health and safety are being subjected under the Protected Disclosures Act of 2014. These proceedings were conducted by Ms. Justice Hogan. [2: Gatto, Marcus, and Sarah Bryan O’Sullivan. "Care versus crime: Safe injecting facilities as a legal crossroads in Ireland." In Giving Voice to Diversity in Criminological Research, pp. 185-208. Bristol University Press, 2021.]
Decision of the Courts
The case was initially addressed to the AO of the Workplace Relation Commission where the appeal was...