The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade & Employment and reversed a High Court order quashing an inspector’s report about alleged employment-law breaches at Gama Construction Ireland Ltd. The court said the report could not be published generally and restricted access to State bodies with prosecutorial functions concerning the matters it identified.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Kearns on 30 April 2009, concerned two sets of proceedings brought on behalf of Gama companies. The Minister appealed the High Court’s 2005 decision, which had declared the report ultra vires, restrained its circulation or publication and quashed it in its entirety.
The investigation began after allegations were made in Dáil Éireann in February 2005 that workers were paid as little as €2 to €3 an hour and required to work excessive hours. Those were allegations, not findings by the Supreme Court. The Minister directed the Labour Inspectorate to investigate. Inspector Edward Nolan conducted the inquiry under statutory powers in employment legislation.
During the inquiry, Gama Ireland acknowledged errors in payroll calculations, said it had made additional payments, and accepted that it was not keeping working-time records in accordance with regulations. The company also said payslips had been distributed in Turkey and that it would provide them to employees in Ireland. These statements were part of the record before the court; the Supreme Court’s decision did not determine the underlying employment allegations.
The inspector’s final report, dated 4 May 2005, said it did not make findings of fact and was not comprehensive or conclusive. It highlighted issues arising from the investigation and referred other matters to relevant authorities without making findings about them. The report had been intended for general publication as well as circulation to authorities.
The Supreme Court held that the investigation and preparation of the report were valid exercises of statutory powers. It disagreed with the High Court’s view that intended general publication invalidated the report itself. However, the court agreed that the employment statutes did not authorise general publication. It directed that access be confined to State bodies with prosecutorial functions concerning the matters in the report, as identified in an earlier interlocutory order. The judgment did not authorise public release of the report.