The High Court refused Iarnród Éireann’s application to quash a Social Welfare Tribunal decision that more than 100 train drivers could qualify for unemployment benefit or assistance during a 2000 work stoppage, subject to the other eligibility conditions.
In a judgment dated 30 November 2007, Mr Justice Roderick Murphy said the court’s role in judicial review was limited to examining the decision-making process; it was not hearing an appeal. The application concerned the Tribunal’s December 2004 decision to uphold its earlier adjudication. That adjudication covered the period from 19 June to 10 August 2000, or an earlier date on which an employee returned to work.
The dispute centred on whether the drivers had been locked out or had chosen not to work after new pay and conditions took effect. Iarnród Éireann argued that the employees had refused to work under the new arrangements and that fresh material presented at the Tribunal’s review should have changed its earlier decision. The company also argued that the Tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons.
The drivers’ position, as recorded in the judgment, was that they had reported for work willing to continue under their existing terms but were prevented from signing on. The Tribunal’s original adjudication described them as having been refused the opportunity to work. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had not made a clear finding on whether there was a lockout.
Murphy J said evidence that the drivers were not allowed to sign on on 19 June had not been controverted in the proceedings. The court also noted the Tribunal’s finding that it had received no new facts of which it was not previously aware. It accepted that “fresh evidence” ordinarily means material that could not reasonably have been produced earlier.
The judge rejected the argument that Iarnród Éireann lacked an interest in the matter, but concluded that this did not entitle the company to the relief it sought. He said it was not for the High Court in this judicial review to decide the legality of the employer’s conduct or the employees’ withdrawal of labour. The application was refused; the Tribunal’s decision remained in place. The judgment did not determine whether the stoppage was a lockout or a strike.