The High Court has ruled that workers on Irish-registered sea fishing vessels may use the complaint and compensation procedure in the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 to pursue alleged breaches of rules on rest periods.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens delivered the judgment on 4 September 2023 in an appeal on a point of law under section 46 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. The appeal arose after an adjudication officer and the Labour Court declined to hear Ahmed Elganagy’s complaint, finding they lacked jurisdiction.
Elganagy, employed as a fisherman by Galopin Trawlers Limited, alleged that he had not received the rest periods required by Article 6 of the European Communities (Workers on Board Seagoing Fishing Vessels) (Organisation of Working Time) Regulations 2003. The judgment’s opening summary describes his work aboard a sea-going fishing vessel owned by the company. The complaint’s merits were not decided in this appeal.
The 2003 Regulations do not expressly include Article 6 among the provisions covered by the section 27 remedy. That section allows statutory decision-makers to determine whether a complaint is well-founded, direct an employer to comply, and award just and equitable compensation up to two years’ remuneration. The High Court held that the relevant legislation must be interpreted, in conformity with European Union law, as extending that remedy to alleged breaches of Article 6.
Justice Owens said the remedy was present by necessary implication: the State must be taken to have intended to provide an effective and equal means of redress when it extended working-time protections to fishing-vessel workers. He found no express contrary provision and said the interpretation was not contrary to Irish law. The judgment addressed the jurisdictional obstacle raised by the adjudication officer and Labour Court; it did not itself decide whether the alleged breach occurred or award compensation.
The court noted that judicial review might have been a preferable route because the issue had a public-law dimension beyond the immediate parties. It also said the Attorney General should be notified because he might wish to intervene and appeal. The judgment states that an appeal from the High Court’s decision would lie to the Supreme Court under Article 34.5.4 of the Constitution.
Costs and the form of the order remained to be settled. The parties were directed to make written submissions on costs, with a hearing for any oral submissions to be scheduled.