The Supreme Court appeal concerned whether the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015 unconstitutionally delegated law-making power to the Labour Court, and whether the Labour Court adequately explained its decision. In a judgment delivered on 18 June 2021, Mr Justice Peter Charleton concurred with the analysis and conclusions of Mr Justice MacMenamin, adding observations on delegated legislation and reasons for decisions.
The applicant was Naisiúnta Léictreach Contraitheoir Éireann Coideachta Faoi Theorainn Ráthaoichta. The respondents and appellants were the Labour Court, the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Ireland and the Attorney General. The judgment identifies the appeal and the High Court proceedings but does not state the formal order made by the Supreme Court in the portion provided.
Charleton said the 2015 Act set out policy objectives and limits in sufficient detail to guide the Labour Court. These included supporting collective bargaining, promoting harmonious relations between workers and employers, avoiding industrial strife, maintaining training and qualification standards, and enabling fair and sustainable remuneration rates. He said the scheme provided for the Labour Court to assess conditions within those limits, with the Oireachtas ultimately approving rates.
The judgment also considered the Act’s background. Charleton said that after the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in McGowan v Labour Court, there had been a gap in the system for setting minimum rates and other conditions through collective bargaining. He also referred to concerns about “social dumping” and the European rules on workers posted to another member state. Those matters, he said, were relevant to understanding the 2015 Act.
On reasons, Charleton agreed with MacMenamin’s analysis that the Labour Court’s explanation was inadequate. Simply recording that a series of factors had been considered did not explain why the outcome had been reached. The central point in a decision, he said, requires some explanation so that a reader can understand why it was resolved for or against a party. The judgment did not require the Labour Court to issue lengthy or judicial-style reasons on every point.
Charleton’s judgment is expressly a concurrence and does not set out a separate operative order. It supports MacMenamin’s conclusions on the Act’s guidance and limits and on the reasons issue; the precise relief or final order is not stated in the supplied text.