The High Court has ruled on the judicial review challenge to the Workplace Relations Act 2015 (and in particular the right of WRC Adjudication Officers to run employment rights hearings). A ruling in favour of the applicants, who argued that the adjudication service was unconstitutional, would have caused enormous difficulties for the adjudication of individual employment disputes in the State. As it stands, the Applicant in this case has a month to appeal or the decision and the existing adjudication service of the WRC will stand as is.

Simons J. has delivered a lengthy judgement and set out the background thus:

The principal issue for determination in these proceedings is whether the procedural mechanisms for the resolution of employment disputes, which have been established under the Workplace Relations Act 2015, involve the administration of justice within the meaning of Article 34 of the Constitution. It is the Applicant’s case that the determination of (i) a claim of “unfair dismissal”, and (ii) a claim for payment in lieu of notice, are matters which are properly reserved to judges appointed in accordance with the Constitution.

The Workplace Relations Act 2015 is said to be invalid in circumstances where it has purported to confer these decision-making functions upon a non-judicial body, namely adjudication officers appointed by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. The alleged invalidity is said to extend equally to the body designated to hear appeals from the adjudication officers, namely, the Labour Court.

This challenge to the validity of the legislation has been strongly contested on behalf of the State respondents.  For introductory purposes… it may be helpful to highlight the following two arguments made on behalf of the State respondents.  First, it is said that a decision of an adjudication officer lacks the character of a binding determination.  If a claimant-employee wishes to enforce the decision, it is necessary to apply to the District Court to do so.  The necessity to have recourse to the judicial power to enforce a decision is, it is said, fatal to the argument that the adjudication officers are themselves carrying on the administration of justice.

Secondly, it is said that employment disputes have not traditionally been regarded as justiciable.  Put otherwise, employment disputes have not traditionally fallen within the purview of the courts. In addition to his principal contention that the Workplace Relations Act 2015 is invalid by reference to Article 34 of the Constitution, the Applicant makes an argument, in the alternative, to the effect that the procedures prescribed under the Act are deficient.  In particular, complaint is made that there is no provision for the taking of evidence on oath or  affirmation;  no  express  provision  for  the cross-examination  of  witnesses;  and  the  hearings before the adjudication officers take place in private.  Complaint is also made that there is no requirement for adjudication officers to hold a legal qualification.

The High Court examined the WRC hearings’ procedure in detail and has concluded that they are not unconstitutional. The Court accepted as an important point that adjudicator decisions are not directly enforceable. The High Court also discussed that several other administrative bodies have panels and decision-makers who are not legally qualified but are appointed for their specialist knowledge. The Court found that cross-examination was built into the WRC procedures, although not always required, and, where it was necessary, a failure by an AO to allow cross-examination would be subject to Judicial Review or an appeal to the Labour Court. Arguments about the need for justice to be seen to be done were equally dismissed by Judge Simons – many administrative decisions are made in private and dissatisfied participants in WRC cases have the right to a de novo appeal to the Labour Court in the case of AO rulings.

The constitutional protections offered by the Labour Court played an important part in the judgement of Simons J:

“In  summary, therefore, my findings  on this  issue are as follows. First, it is doubtful whether the values protected by the constitutional requirement that justice be administered in public can be “read across” to decision-making by non-judicial bodies. Secondly, even if one assumes for the purposes of argument that a presumption in favour of a public hearing, analogous to that applicable to the administration of justice under Article 34.1, arises in the context of a claim for unfair dismissal, the legislative requirement for a public decision but a private hearing represents a legitimate legislative choice. Thirdly, any requirement for a public hearing, is, in any event, achieved by the provisions governing the appeal to the Labour Court."
https://beta.courts.ie/view/judgments/adf2045f-1fd7-41a2-aa0b-31f0271504d8/375ad4be-9b41-44d9-8db9-fb43511cd588/2020_IEHC_178.pdf/pdf