Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)

Does the Minister regard the Chairman of the Labour Court as one of the most competent persons to hold the office? He has legal qualifications in his own right as well as industrial relations experience. When the Supreme Court judgment emanated, what was the reaction in the Department? Will it in effect render the 2001 and 2004 legislation defunct if the Supreme Court's interpretation of that legislation is to prevail?

The Minister of State indicated through the House that the Labour Court will try the case again. However, it will do so with its hands behind its back based on the judgment of Mr. Justice Geoghegan. He described the Labour Court decision as an impressive document in its structure and the manner in which it identified the issues. He found the document betrayed "an understandable mind set in favour of the way particular expressions are used and particular activities are carried out by trade unions". If that is not right-wing bias what is? Does this ring alarm bells in the Department? What contingency plans does the Minister of State have, if any, if this judgment prevails irrespective of what the Labour Court does outside the Supreme Court?

We now have an interpretation of 2001 and 2004 legislation which completely changes the nature of the meaning of the Acts as passed in this House by the Government and as understood by the Labour Party. The Supreme Court judgment stands independent of any outcome from the Labour Court regarding the specific case. The law has been altered in its interpretation. Whatever the Labour Court may adjudicate on the specific case, it will not change the standing of the judgment of the Supreme Court in interpreting legislation. What are the legislative implications for workers, society and social partnership if the Supreme Court can tear up legislation as we understand it?

See this speech in context