The High Court has set aside a Labour Court determination that rejected a prison officer’s appeal over racial abuse by prisoners, finding that the Labour Court had not adequately explained its decision or addressed an indirect discrimination claim.
In a judgment delivered on 8 December 2023, Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan ruled on an appeal on points of law brought by Peter Onyemekeihia. The Labour Court’s July 2022 determination had upheld the dismissal of his complaints by a Workplace Relations Commission adjudicating officer.
Onyemekeihia, a black man originally from Nigeria, worked as a prison officer in Mountjoy Prison. His complaints concerned racial abuse by some prisoners between 2009 and 2015. He argued before the Labour Court that the Irish Prison Service could not rely on the defence in section 14A of the Employment Equality Act because it had not taken reasonably practicable steps to prevent harassment. He also maintained a claim of indirect discrimination under the EU Race Directive.
The Labour Court accepted the Prison Service’s position that the prison environment required a tailored approach and found that its prisoner sanctions and anti-harassment policy met the statutory defence. It also directed the Service to review its anti-racism strategy and policies. The officer argued that the finding of a robust approach and effective policy sat uneasily with the direction to conduct a thorough review.
Justice O’Regan agreed that the Labour Court’s determination contained an unexplained contradiction. She also found that it did not engage with competing arguments about how consistently the Prison Service acted, whether sanctions under the P19 regime were effective, and whether an anti-harassment policy was in place. The Labour Court gave no explanation for accepting the Service’s case over the officer’s, the judge said.
The High Court also found that the Labour Court should have referred to the indirect discrimination claim, which had been included in the officer’s submissions, rather than ignoring it. The Service had argued that no evidence was led on that issue.
The High Court set aside the Labour Court’s 20 July 2022 determination. It did not decide whether the officer’s harassment or indirect discrimination claims were established, or whether the Prison Service could rely on the section 14A defence. The underlying issues therefore remain unresolved by this judgment.
On costs, the judge expressed the provisional view that the officer should receive his costs, to be adjudicated if the parties could not agree. She gave the parties 14 days to make written submissions of up to 1,000 words if they disagreed; otherwise, the proposed costs order would be made.