Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 92: To ask the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if he will make a statement on the Ryanair judgment in the Supreme Court; the implications for Irish industrial relations; and his views on whether corrective legislation will be needed. [8527/07]

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 2 of the Industrial Relations Act 2001 as amended provides that the Labour Court may, at the request of a trade union or excepted body, investigate a trade dispute where it is satisfied that, inter alia, it is not the practice of the employer to engage in collective bargaining negotiations in respect of the group of workers party to the dispute and the internal dispute resolution procedures, if any, normally used by the parties concerned failed to resolve the dispute.

The Supreme Court judgment in the case referred to by the Deputy arises from judicial review proceedings brought by Ryanair against a decision of the Labour Court in January 2005 to investigate, at the request of the IMPACT trade union, a dispute between the union and Ryanair concerning Dublin-based pilots. Ryanair brought judicial review proceedings seeking to quash the Labour Court's decision on the grounds that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction in the matter, in essence that the conditions for the investigation of a dispute in the section of the Act I quoted had not been met, and that the Labour Court had adopted unfair procedures in arriving at its decision.

The High Court found in favour of the Labour Court in the matter. However, on appeal the Supreme Court found in favour of Ryanair. It ordered the Labour Court to again hear the case and apply the procedures and law as indicated in its judgment. It is a matter for the Labour Court to proceed as indicated by the Supreme Court, however, I understand the court considered the Supreme Court judgment and arrangements are being made to hear the case again. In the circumstances, it is prudent to exercise caution when commenting on this issue.

Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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?

Tony Killeen (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with Deputy Quinn that the Chairman of the Labour Court is entirely competent, committed to his work and doing wonderful work on behalf of the State. However, I understand in this instance the Supreme Court did not decide on the substantive issue. It decided on a matter of procedure which I understand related to the manner of hearing evidence, which in essence is an internal matter for the Labour Court. It is not the substantive issue as outlined by Deputy Quinn. Pending the resolution at Labour Court level, which can only happen when the hearing is completed, it would be premature to draw any conclusions particularly those which Deputy Quinn fears may be the upshot of all of this.