Abbott ordered to pay worker €35,000 for sacking him over cleaning product error

Pharma firm Abbott has been ordered to pay a worker €35,000 over sacking him for using the wrong cleaning product.

The Workplace Relations Commission found that the errors by general operative Martin O’Riordan on 1 April 2020 “could not, in any circumstance, be considered gross misconduct by a reasonable employer” – awarding him the sum in compensation for a breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977.

However, it rejected parallel claims in which Mr O’Riordan alleged he had been penalised for raising health and safety concerns.

Mr O’Riordan, who was represented by solicitor Sean Ormonde, said he was “shocked” to be told he was being suspended over using the wrong cleaning solution the day after the incident.

A chance interview at ESB led to an international career in energy

---

The rise and fall of ESG: from noble ambition to corporate tokenism

---

Holidaymakers are playing a game of chicken with airlines – and it’s paying off

---

Poll woes may prompt Biden to borrow Trump’s stock market tactics

---

He was ultimately subjected to a number of investigation meetings leading up to a disciplinary meeting in July 2020, where he was told that he would be sacked.

Mr Ormonde said Abbott “erroneously” stated after this that his client had been on a final written warning at the time of the incident, which was “demonstrably untrue”, he said.

Mark Rodgers BL, instructed by Matheson Solicitors for Abbott Ireland Ltd, said the firm required operatives to adhere to procedures, including “detailed instructions” on the preparation of the fixtures Mr O’Riordan was assigned to clean.

He said a 100% alcohol concentration was “expressly” required and that workers had a duty to refer to the label to verify the product when they came back from break.

The company’s case was that Mr O’Riordan failed to do this and then failed to engage with either his supervisor or a quality control technician on “corrective action”.

He said the company’s investigation found Mr O’Riordan had gone off “without instruction” to re-process the parts.

Mr O’Riordan denied refusing to follow a direct instruction from the quality technician to isolate the affected items.

“The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of devices that are to be used in extremely delicate medical procedures. As such [it] must have the complete trust of all employees in every instance,” Mr Rodgers said.

He said that trust was “irrevocably damaged” by the conduct of Mr O’Riordan on the day in question.

In evidence, the company’s disciplinary officer accepted that the termination letter sent to the complainant also included an error – but said that as the complainant had previously been sanctioned, he was “on a disciplinary path on the date of termination”.

Mr Rodgers said the sacking “was fair and respected all [Mr O’Riordan’s] natural and contractual rights] “.

Adjudicating officer Brian Dolan, however, said Mr O’Riordan had over 14 years’ experience and had “successfully completed a vast amount of production processes without any issue ever being raised”.

There was no evidence that the complainant’s work was “anything other than exemplary”, he added, adding that it was “difficult to comprehend” how the company had “passed over” lesser sanctions in its disciplinary process to get to gross misconduct in the circumstances.

“I note the evidence of the quality manager to the effect that he was concerned by the complainant’s apparent failure to abide by a direct instruction from a quality technician, it is apparent that in seeking to reclean the affected items, the complainant was simply seeking to rectify his earlier mistake,” he wrote.

Noting Mr O’Riordan’s evidence that he had failed to progress in interviews with other local manufacturing firms after disclosing the reasons for his dismissal before eventually finding work for less pay, Mr Dolan awarded the complainant €35,000 in compensation.

In a parallel decision, the adjudicator also rejected earlier complaints by the worker under the Protected Disclosures Act and the Health, Safety and Welfare at Work Act, in which he had alleged he was penalised for raising safety concerns.