David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 111:

In page 55, after line 42, to insert the following:

"(e) the Chairman of the Labour Court for the purposes of having any particular case dealt with may-

(i)appoint a person or persons to be a temporary member of the Labour Court,

(ii) appoint a person or persons to be a temporary Deputy Chairman of the Labour Court,

(iii) the Minister shall from time to time nominate a body of persons who may be appointed as a temporary member of the Labour Court

or a temporary Deputy member of the Labour Court on such terms and conditions as he or she may determine,

(iv) any person who may be nominated as a temporary member of the Labour Court or temporary Deputy Chairman of the Labour Court

shall be appointed to a list of persons whom shall be reviewed every five years. Any person nominated by the Minister shall be subject to a nomination from the Public Appointment Service and the production by the 31st March in each year of a certificate from the Revenue Commissioners confirming compliance with the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (as amended).".

This amendment is about the power of nomination of the chairman of the Labour Court. It allows him to appoint persons as temporary members of the Labour Court. There are cases that arise in which there is no power for the chairman of the Labour Court to nominate other persons where there could be a conflict. This amendment deals with conflict of interest. This is a frequent phenomenon in court cases where judges recuse themselves from cases because they are known to one of the parties before the court. The amendment seeks the same provision because there is a limited number of members of the Labour Court. This is to allow the chairman to appoint somebody as a temporary member in order to avoid a situation where there are conflicts of interest. There is such a provision in the equality legislation to the director of equality so there is a precedent in law already.

As the number in the Labour Court would be relatively small and to avoid problems which have arisen in the past where the Labour Court members would have known the parties or one of the parties, for the purpose of ensuring that there would be a fair hearing, there are issues to ensure that a completely independent division could be appointed. This amendment seeks directly to do that.

An example which could arise would be that a member of the workplace commission brings a claim under a particular Act. Unless it is equality legislation, members of the Labour Court may well know that person having met with him daily and would have to hear the case even where there could be a perceived prejudice, even though no actual prejudice might exist. The Labour Court applies matters fairly but even in the High Court, judges excuse themselves. There are inevitably sufficient judges to avoid any perceived prejudice but with four divisions only there is a potential for the entire membership of the Labour Court to know an employee or employer personally.

I would think the fact that in one instance where the equality legislation is invoked there is such a provision would mean that we would want transparency on a level playing field for everybody and that granting this power to the chairman of the Labour Court would be an appropriate move in the right direction.