The High Court has dismissed an employer’s appeal and upheld a Labour Court determination that a truck driver was penalised after telling managers he was too tired to drive safely.
In a judgment delivered on 20 December 2013, President of the High Court Kearns dismissed Stobart (Ireland) Driver Services Limited’s appeal against the Labour Court decision. The court did not make a fresh award; it upheld the Labour Court’s determination.
Keith Carroll had worked a 15.5-hour driving journey from Dublin to Ballinasloe and back on 12 October 2011, including 1.75 hours of breaks. He asked not to be rostered for a shift the following night because he believed he had worked excessive hours. After a manager checked the records, Carroll was told he had worked 47 hours, rather than the 53 hours he said he had worked, and that his shift would begin at 23.45.
Carroll told managers several times that he was too tired to drive. He later called to take the shift but was told alternative arrangements had been made. The company dismissed him the next day, saying his withdrawal of labour amounted to refusal of a reasonable management instruction and gross misconduct under its disciplinary procedure.
A Rights Commissioner found the complaint well-founded in August 2012 and recommended reinstatement from 20 October 2011, on Carroll’s previous terms and conditions, plus compensation for lost wages from that date until the recommendation was implemented. The Labour Court also found the complaint well-founded. It concluded that the dismissal followed immediately after Carroll raised the fatigue issue, departed from the company’s usual practice and procedures, and would not have occurred but for his representations about being too tired to work.
The employer argued on appeal that Carroll had not made a protected health and safety complaint, had suffered no relevant detriment, and that reinstatement was outside the available remedies. The High Court rejected those arguments. It held that reporting fatigue could amount to a complaint under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, and that the Act did not require an employee to use a workplace grievance procedure first. The court also held that the Labour Court had given adequate reasons and that reinstatement could be ordered as a specific course of action under the Act.
The High Court said the Labour Court had heard oral and documentary evidence and was entitled to deference as a specialist tribunal. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the Labour Court’s determination.