The High Court has dismissed Tibor Baranya’s appeal against a Labour Court determination that his communication to his employer was not a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.
The appeal, heard on a point of law under section 10A of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, concerned the Labour Court’s decision of 8 April 2019. Mr Baranya sought to have that decision set aside insofar as it found that he had not made a protected disclosure. He argued that the Labour Court had misapplied the statutory test and failed to consider evidence about his pain and his approach to the employer’s Health and Safety Officer.
The High Court reviewed the Labour Court’s determination and the evidence before it. The Labour Court had found that Mr Baranya’s communication was that he wanted to change roles because he was in pain. The High Court accepted that as a finding of fact, noting that the Labour Court had heard oral evidence and that its account of what was said was supported by an affidavit from the employer’s Human Resources Manager.
Mr Baranya argued that he had also said his pain was caused by his work. The High Court said the Labour Court’s factual finding was that the communication was more limited and did not reveal an act or omission by the employer that could amount to wrongdoing. It also held that the fact he had approached the Health and Safety Officer did not, on its own or together with the words found to have been spoken, communicate information suggesting a reasonable belief in a relevant wrongdoing. The court said this argument had been raised late and was not a proper basis to set aside the determination.
The court rejected the appeal grounds. It found that relevant information under section 5 had to attribute some act or omission to the employer that the worker might reasonably believe tended to show a relevant wrongdoing. It also rejected the claim that the Labour Court had treated a grievance and a protected disclosure as incapable of overlapping, or had interpreted a code of practice as amending the 2014 Act. The court said the Labour Court had considered section 5, including the provision concerning danger to health or safety.
The High Court concluded that Mr Baranya had not established any error of law by the Labour Court. It dismissed the appeal. The judgment does not determine the underlying unfair dismissal claim on its merits.