Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Patrick  Smith

Baxter Healthcare SA

Representatives

Ms. Martina Weir, SIPTU

Mr. Shane MacSweeney, MacSweeney & Company Solicitors

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00064662-001

09/07/2024

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 12 of the Minimum Notice & Terms of Employment Act, 1973

CA-00064662-002

09/07/2024

The Complainant commenced employment on 1st March 2008. At all relevant times the Complainant’s role was described as “Production Team Leader”. The Complainant was a permanent, full-time member of staff, in receipt of an average weekly payment of €1,003.00.  The Complainant’s employment was terminated by the Respondent, on the grounds of alleged gross misconduct, on 21st February 2024.

 On 9th July 2024, the Complainant referred the present complaints to the Commission. Herein, he alleged that his dismissal was procedurally and substantively unfair.  In particular, the Complainant alleged that the investigation process undertaken by the Respondent did not respect his natural and contractual rights. The Complainant further submitted that the sanction of dismissal was disproportionate in the circumstances.  By response, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was dismissed following adherence to a comprehensive internal procedure, during which the his rights were fully observed. They further submitted that given the nature of the admitted wrongdoing on the part of the Complainant, dismissal was the only appropriate sanction in the circumstances.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 20th October 2025. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced during the hearing.

Both parties issued extensive submissions in advance of the hearing. Said submissions were expanded upon and contested in the course of the hearing. In circumstances whereby the factual matrix regarding the dismissal itself was not in material dispute, and the Complainant’s case related to a series of net procedural points, neither party elected to call witness evidence, and the matter was dealt with by way of submission only.

No issues as to my jurisdiction to hear the complaint were raised at any stage of the proceedings. In circumstances whereby the Respondent accepted the fact of the dismissal, and the consequent burden of proof under the Act, they presented their case first.

The Respondent is a medical devices manufacturer producing critical care, hospital, and surgical products. Operating within a heavily regulated industry, the Respondent maintains rigorous safety and quality assurance processes. The Complainant was employed as a Team Leader responsible for overseeing the production of a central product in accordance with the production plan. This role required the Complainant to manage manufacturing processes, adhere to batch instructions, perform routine quality checks, take product samples, and record data within the prescribed system.

The relevant product in question is a life-saving technology administered by medical professionals in clinical settings. In late 2023, the Respondent became aware of a customer complaint in the USA regarding four units of the product whereby the concentration of the pharmaceutical ingredient was incorrectly labelled at double the actual amount. This necessitated a precautionary recall of the batch to prevent patient harm and reputational damage.

Consequently, the Respondent initiated a non-performance and human factor review. During meetings on 15th and 18th December 2023, the Complainant admitted he had discovered incorrect labels at or near production equipment some months previously, but failed to escalate the matter in accordance with internal processes. He also disclosed a failure to comply with two essential manufacturing checks. Despite being an experienced employee, the Complainant admitted he had not performed hourly challenge checks on the labeller, even though he had signed documentation on each shift confirming these checks were completed. Furthermore, the Complainant admitted to using a bypass key in contravention of internal procedures.

The Respondent appointed an investigation team consisting of a Production Manager and a Quality Assurance Supervisor. The Complainant was invited to an investigation meeting on 19th December 2023, which he attended with a trade union representative. Following his disclosures, the Complainant was suspended on full pay. An investigation report was issued on 10th January 2024, noting that while the Complainant initially claimed to have escalated the label issue to a process technician, he later accepted that he had not done so. During a subsequent disciplinary meeting, the Complainant claimed he was unaware of the requirement for hourly checks, despite the signed confirmation boxes. He speculated that his failure to stop the machine was due to perceived pressure to maintain operations.

By outcome correspondence, date 24th February 2024, the Respondent determined that the Complainant’s series of failures directly led to the product recall. It was noted that the Complainant had an active warning on his file at the time for failing to perform quality checks. While the Respondent considered mitigating factors, such as the Complainant’s long service and remorse, the gravity of the error led to a finding of gross misconduct. In consideration of these circumstances, the Respondent elected to terminate the Complainant’s employment without notice.

The Complainant duly appealed the sanction on 3rd May 2024. In the course of this process, he alleged that the initial December meetings were disciplinary in nature and duly required representation and advance notice. The Respondent submits that those meetings were part of a standard non-compliance review and that the Complainant consistently accepted the wrongdoing alleged throughout the process. In these circumstances, the Respondent submitted that no procedural breach arose as a consequence of the same, and the dismissal of the Complainant was deemed to stand.

By submission, the Respondent stated that given the admission of guilt on the part of the Complainant and the nature of the activities of the Respondent, dismissal was the only appropriate sanction in the circumstances. Ther Respondent stated that the relevant decision maker did consider alternative sanctions to dismissal and stated that these were expressly set out in both the initial letter of dismissal and the appeal outcome. Having regard to the accumulation of the foregoing points, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant was fairly dismissed within the meaning of the Act and, consequently, his application should fail.

By submission, the Complainant stated that he commenced his employment as a Team Leader with the Respondent on 1st March 2008.

On 15th December 2023, the Complainant was approached by his Line Manager regarding the apparent discovery of incorrect labels on a machine he operated. At his point, the Complainant candidly disclosed that he recalled seeing incorrect labels several months prior. Shortly thereafter, he was summoned to a meeting with the Production Manager and his Line Manager, where he was questioned further.

A second interview occurred on 18th December 2023. During this meeting, the Production Manager informed the Complainant for the first time that an investigation into a customer complaint had been initiated. The Complainant was questioned regarding his earlier disclosures and his knowledge of the labelling process. The Complainant submits that he was provided with no advance notice of this meeting, having just commenced his shift on the date in question. Furthermore, he was not informed of his right to trade union representation, nor was he provided with minutes of the meeting for review.

In this regard, the Complainant maintains that he cooperated fully, clarifying that the incorrect labels were located beside the machine rather than loaded into it. He contends that this clarification was disregarded, marking the beginning of the process that led to his dismissal. Formal written notification of an investigation by the Production Manager and a Quality Assurance Supervisor was issued on 19th December 2023, with a meeting scheduled for the following day. The Complainant argues that the notice provided was insufficient to allow for adequate preparation or consultation with his union representative.

It is the Complainant’s position that the investigation had effectively commenced during the meetings on 15th December 2023 and 18th December 2023. He submits that conducting these interviews without affording him the right to representation or preparation time constituted a breach of procedure and a violation of the principles of natural justice. Although he was accompanied by a shop steward for the meeting on 20th December 2023, the Complainant was subsequently suspended on full pay, a measure he did not anticipate at the time.

Following a further meeting on 8th January 2024, an investigation report was issued on 30th January 2024, which recommended proceeding to a disciplinary stage. A disciplinary meeting took place on 2nd February 2024, presided over by a different Production Manager and a Human Resources Manager. A letter of dismissal was issued on 21st February 2024. The Complainant lodged an appeal which was heard on 3rd May 2024, with the final decision to uphold the dismissal issued on 5th July 2024.

The Complainant submits that the process outlined above was fundamentally flawed due to several procedural breaches. He submitted that the information gathered during the initial unrepresented meetings was used to inform the official investigation findings. Additionally, he noted that he did not receive the notes from these interviews until they were attached to the final investigation report. He further alleged that he was the only individual interviewed as part of the formal procedure, despite the report referencing notes from discussions with other Team Leaders.

The Complainant also highlighted a breach of the Respondent’s internal procedures, which require that a dismissal be authorised by both a Human Resources Manager and the General Manager. The dismissal letter in this instance was signed by the Production Manager and a Human Resources Manager, with no evidence of the General Manager’s involvement.

While the Complainant admits he failed to perform the required checks, he maintains that he acted honestly and wished to assist in resolving the underlying error. He submits that his long service was not given sufficient weight as a mitigating factor and suggests that the Respondent sought to placate a customer by assigning blame to an individual. The Complainant concludes that while errors occurred, the sanction of dismissal was disproportionately severe, rendering the dismissal both procedurally and substantively unfair under the terms of the Act.

Regarding the present matter, the Respondent submits that the Complainant was dismissed on the grounds of misconduct following a series of breaches of standard operating procedure. These breaches directly contributed to a product recall and significant reputational damage. The Respondent maintained that the dismissal followed a comprehensive investigation and disciplinary process conducted in accordance with internal procedures and the principles of natural justice. The Complainant was provided with two investigation meetings, a disciplinary hearing and a full de novo appeal. As a consequence of their investigations, the Respondent concluded that the Complainant’s actions amounted to gross misconduct, for which dismissal was the only appropriate sanction.

In grounding his complaint of unfair dismissal under the Act, the Complainant narrowed his case to three primary points. Firstly, and primarily, he contends that the initial meetings on 15th and 18th December 2023 were informal in nature and that he was neither advised of his right to representation nor given adequate time to prepare. Secondly, while he broadly accepted the allegation wrongdoing set out by the Respondent, he submitted that dismissal was a disproportionate sanction given his full admissions and long service. Finally, he alleges a procedural failure, noting that his dismissal was not authorised by the General Manager, in accordance with the Respondent’s internal procedures.

In this regard, Section 6(1) of the Unfair Dismissals Acts provides that,

“Subject to the provisions of this section, the dismissal of an employee shall be deemed for the purpose of this Act, to be an unfair dismissal unless, having regard to all the circumstances, there were substantial grounds justifying the dismissal”

Section 6(4)(B) provides that where a dismissal arises “wholly or mainly” as a consequence of “the conduct of the employee” such a dismissal “shall be deemed…not to be an unfair dismissal” for the purposes of the Acts.

Section 6(6) of the Unfair Dismissals Act provides that,

“In determining for the purposes of this Act whether the dismissal of an employee was an unfair dismissal or not, it shall be for the employer to show that the dismissal resulted wholly or mainly from one or more of the matters specified in subsection [6](4)”

Section 6(7) provides that in determining whether a dismissal is unfair, regard may be had:

a) “to the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct (whether by act or omission) of the employer in relation to the dismissal, and

b) to the extent (if any) of the compliance or failure to comply…with the procedure…or with the provisions of any code of practice….”.

The matter of Noritake (Irl) Ltd v Kenna (UD 88/1983) sets out the following three criteria to determine “reasonableness” for the purposes of the Acts:

·       “Did the company believe that the employee misconducted himself as alleged?

·       If so, did the company have reasonable grounds to sustain that belief?

·       If so, was the penalty of dismissal proportionate to the alleged misconduct?”

While much the factual matrix is broadly agreed amongst the parties, the burden of proof regarding the establishment of a fair dismissal on the grounds of misconduct rests with the Respondent. In this regard, it is common case that the Complainant, acting in a supervisory capacity, admitted to breaching manufacturing processes and completing incorrect documentation. While the Complainant accepted that a disciplinary sanction was likely warranted, he argued that the sanction of dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses available to the Respondent.

Regarding the procedural concerns, the Complainant alleges that the initial meetings in December 2023 did not adhere to formal investigation protocols. In this regard, it is a matter of practical reality that employers must be permitted to engage in informal fact-finding exercises to address operational issues as they arise. Having considered the positions of the parties, it is apparent that the meetings of 15th & 18th December 2023 constituted such an exercise, during which the Complainant made concessions that justified further inquiry. I agree with the submission of the Respondent that every interaction between an employer and employee, even those that might conceivably lead to significant consequence, cannot reasonably be expected to trigger formal procedures from the outset. In this particular instance, while the first two meeting were informal in nature, the Complainant was invited to multiple investigation, disciplinary and appeal meetings during which he was provided with full rights as to notice and representation. It is apparent that the Complainant was free to recant from his earlier statements during these more formal meetings, if he so wished. Furthermore, as the Complainant admitted to the wrongdoing in question at all stages, any alleged defect in the initial informal process would not have had any material bearing on the ultimate outcome of the process.

The Complainant further raised the issue of the dismissal being authorised by the Production Manager as opposed to the General Manager. In this regard, the Respondent’s disciplinary procedures provide that,

“A grave violation endangering the safety of an employee or contrary to the Company’s interest represents sufficient cause for discharge by the Supervisor with the prior agreement of the Human Resources Manager and the General Manager.”

The position adopted by the Complainant was that his letter of dismissal was co-signed by a production manager and the HR manager, without any apparent input from the general manager. A number of points arise in relation to this submission. Firstly, the Complainant was afforded a full right of appeal of the sanction of dismissal. In engaging with the process, the Complainant set out numerous grounds of appeal, with no mention of the issue above. Secondly, while it apparent that the letter of dismissal was signed by the production manager, this does not prevent the same from being issued with the prior agreement of the general manager as mandated by the policy. Finally, even if this was not the case, the identity of the person that made the decision to dismiss had no material bearing on the actual misconduct in question or the manner in which the Respondent viewed the same.

In the matter of Shortt v Royal Liver Assurance Ltd [2008] IEHC 332, the High Court held as follows,

"…the authorities ... make it clear that, while an employee who is facing disciplinary action is entitled to the benefit of fair procedures, what these will demand depends on the terms of the employee's employment and the circumstances surrounding the disciplinary action…The important point is that the decision-maker must not act in such a way as to imperil a fair hearing or a fair result”.

Having considered the foregoing points, I find that the procedural issue raised by the Complainant in no way imperilled “a fair hearing or a fair result”.

Finally, the Complainant submitted that the sanction of dismissal was overly severe and disproportionate.  In particular, the Complainant submitted that he was a long-standing member of staff and that he made full and frank admissions throughout the process. His position was that these mitigating factors were not considered by the Respondent in their deliberations regarding his ongoing employment.

In this regard, the test to determine the proportionality of a dismissal as a sanction is well settled. In the matter of Bank of Ireland v Reilly [2015] IEHC 241, Noonan J. approved the following passage,

‘The correct test is: was it reasonable for the employers to dismiss him? If no reasonable employer would have dismissed him, then the dismissal was unfair. But if a reasonable employer might reasonably have dismissed him, then the dismissal was fair. It must be remembered that in all these cases there is a band of reasonableness, within which one employer might reasonably take one view, another quite reasonably take a different view.”

In the manufacture of medical devices, an industry subject to intense regulation, any deviation from operational protocol must be treated with the utmost gravity. Given the nature of the breaches in question, and the direct consequences of the same, it is clear that the range of reasonable responses open to the Respondent was particularly wide, and they were entitled to impose a severe sanction, up to and including dismissal, in this instance.  

Regarding the issue of mitigation, the letter of dismissal expressly states that the Respondent considered the Complainant’s mitigating factors. This correspondence expressly outlines the Respondent’s position as to each of the mitigating factors and concludes, not unreasonably, that the same do not mitigate against the sanction of dismissal. In this regard, it is apparent that the Respondent did consider the mitigating factors outlined by the Complainant and thereafter they provided a clear rationale for why these did not preclude the sanction of dismissal.

Finally, regarding the issue of the Complainant’s previous disciplinary warning, which was live at the time of the incident but had expired by the date of dismissal, it is noted that the Respondent did not rely on this as a "stepping stone" in a progressive disciplinary chain.  Rather, they viewed the later issues as constituting gross misconduct that gave rise to dismissal of itself.  

In this respect, a distinction may be drawn between more minor misconduct that will give rise to a lessor disciplinary sanction, and gross misconduct, that may lead to an employee’s dismissal without notice. While the terms gross misconduct has remained somewhat elusive in its definition, in the matter Brennan -v- Institute of Technology Carlow UD281/2000, the Employment Appeals Tribunal held that,

“…gross misconduct” must be something very serious indeed, perhaps criminal or quasi-criminal in nature.”

While the present matters do not involve either criminal or quasi-criminal matters, it is also apparent that the same involve serious breaches of the Respondent’s operating procedures on the part of the Complainant. Given the severity of the same, the nature of the Respondent’s business and in consideration of the actual and potential implications arising, I find that the Respondent was entitled to make a finding of gross misconduct in relation to the same.

In summary, it is found that the Respondent has established that the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses available to these. The Complainant has failed to demonstrate that any procedural irregularities that would serve to prejudice his right to a fair hearing or a fair result. In these circumstances, I find that the Respondent has discharged the burden of proof in demonstrating that the dismissal was fair on the grounds of misconduct in accordance with the Act, and the complaint is therefore deemed not well founded. In circumstances whereby the Complainant was dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct, he is not entitled to a payment of statutory or contractual notice.

CA-00064662-001 – Complaint under the Unfair Dismissal Act

I find that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

CA-00064662-002 – Complaint under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act

I find that the complaint is not well-founded.

Gross Misconduct, Band of Reasonable Responses, Notice, Processs