Quick search
CTRL+K
Quick search
CTRL+K
Since 2010, the Global Law Experts annual awards have been celebrating excellence, innovation and performance across the legal communities from around the world.
posted 8 months ago
In Bruno Seigle – Murandi v Roche Products (Ireland) Limited ADJ 00034384 the Complainant lodged a claim with the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, on foot of what he claimed was adverse treatment amounting to penalisation due to having made protected disclosures.
Facts
The Complainant in this case commenced employment with the Respondent as a Pharmocovigilance Manager in August 2018. In May, 2019, he made a protected disclosure concerning marketing materials which were being published and distributed by the Respondent. The disclosure related to a concern that the materials appeared very similar to patient information materials, which are tightly controlled and regulated by law.
It appears to have been accepted by both sides that this amounted to a protected disclosure. It is also common case that the Respondent then self-reported the issue to the Health Products Regulation Authority (“HPRA). However, much of the rest of the facts of the case appear to have been in dispute and the WRC decision is a lengthy detailed decision (see link below).
Author
Sign up for the latest advisory briefings and news within Global Advisory Experts’ community, as well as a whole host of features, editorial and conference updates direct to your email inbox.
Naturally you can unsubscribe at any time.
Global Advisory Experts is dedicated to providing exceptional advisory services to clients around the world. With a vast network of highly skilled and experienced advisers, we are committed to delivering innovative and tailored solutions to meet the diverse needs of our clients in various jurisdictions.
