The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by four retained firefighters and their union against a High Court decision that the Labour Court’s recommendation on union recognition could not be challenged by judicial review.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan on 20 October 2016, concerned a request by the Psychiatric Nurses Association (PNA) and its Irish Fire and Emergency Service Association branch (IFESA) to be recognised for negotiations with Waterford County Council. The Council employed 76 retained firefighters; the judgment said 61, or 80%, belonged to the PNA and IFESA. The Council recognised five unions for negotiation purposes but not the PNA or IFESA.
In May 2013, the PNA’s general secretary asked the Council to recognise IFESA for negotiations. The Council replied that it could not do so because IFESA was not recognised nationally for that purpose. The applicants then asked the Labour Court to investigate the trade dispute under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, undertaking in advance to accept its recommendation.
After a hearing, the Labour Court recommended in March 2014 that the Council should not concede the recognition claim. It said the Council had established collective bargaining arrangements and that recognising the applicants’ group could destabilise them. The applicants later argued that the recommendation’s conclusions were factually unsustainable, relied on irrelevant considerations and lacked adequate reasons.
The High Court held that the recommendation was not open to judicial review. On appeal, the Council argued that it determined no rights or obligations. The Court of Appeal agreed: the Labour Court had acted as an industrial relations mediator, making a recommendation based on practical considerations rather than adjudicating legal rights. The recommendation did not bind the Council or create a legally enforceable determination, the Court said. The applicants’ prior undertaking under section 20(1) enabled the Labour Court to take jurisdiction but did not turn its recommendation into a binding legal decision.
The appeal addressed only whether the recommendation was amenable to judicial review. The Court did not determine the applicants’ substantive complaints about the recommendation’s reasoning. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court’s conclusion in place.