asked the Minister for Labour the appeals taken to the High Court against decisions of the Employment Appeals Tribunal since I January 1968; the date of the hearing in the High Court or Circuit Court; the date of reference to the court where hearings have not yet been held; the point of law at issue, and the decision of the court in each case.
Written Answers. - Employment Appeals Tribunal Decisions.
175.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal deals with cases under the Redundancy Payments Acts, 1967-1973, the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, and the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.
Appeals to the High Court against tribunal decisions in cases under the Redundancy Payments Acts from 1 January 1968 and under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, are set out in the following statement. No appeals have been taken to the High Court under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.
Appeals under Redundancy Payments Acts 1968-1973
|
Title of Appeal |
Date of Hearing |
Point of law at issue |
Decision of Court |
|
1. Limerick Health Authority v Ryan |
17 July 1969 |
1. Position vis-á-vis 21 hours work per week requirement for redundancy qualification of person whose hours of work are not fixed but who is required to be available at all times; (Section 4 of 1967 Act referred). |
1. That Section 4 does not apply when the employer does not or cannot specify the hours during which an employee is to do the work and when its nature requires that employee be available at all times. The Tribunal decision on this issue was upheld. |
|
2. Scope and application of redundancy entitlement in cases of replacement of one employee by another. |
2. That the kind of work, not the type of employee, is the decisive factor. The Tribunal decision on this issue was reversed and the claim for redundancy failed. |
||
|
2. Long and others v Minister for Labour and Thomas Mc Inerney & Co. Ltd. |
11 Dec. 1975 |
Reasonableness of offers of alternative employment under Section 15 of the 1967 Act (as amended) and meaning of the word “place” in Section 15 in connection with such offers. |
That the Tribunal had determined the case under Section 15(2) and that its decision must be reversed since there was no offer in writing of the alternative employment. |
|
3. Cummins v C.I.E. |
No hearing — appeal withdrawn and struck out on 30 May 1978. |
Whether worker kept on after retirement age had continuity of service, employer holding that invitation to stay on at work involved new conditions sufficient to break continuity. |
None—appeal withdrawn and struck out. |
|
4. Gilmartin v Redundancy Appeals Tribunal |
29 June 1978 |
Right to redundancy where worker put on short-time which is not as defined in the Acts. |
Reversal of the Tribunal's decision which had held that employee had accepted new contract without dismissal and was therefore not entitled to redundancy. |
Appeals under Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973
|
Appeals to the High Court |
Date of Hearing |
Date referred to Court |
Point of law at issue |
Decision of Court |
|
Brewster v Minister for Labour |
8 Feb. 1978 |
15 March 1977 |
Whether the refusal of the employee to obey the employer “fell short of misconduct as envisaged by the Act”. |
Decision of the Tribunal was upheld. |
|
Whether Section 8 of the Act operated to disentitle the employee from receiving the prescribed period of eight weeks notice of termination of employment. |
||||
|
Whether the said employee was entitled to such eight weeks or any notice. |
||||
|
Whether the said Tribunal in making its rulings was entitled to have regard to the fact that the employer voluntarily gave the employee one week's pay on termination of his said employment. |
||||
|
C.I.E. v Minister for Labour |
26 January 1978 |
That the employees were not entitled to compensation. |
Appeal not yet heard by the High Court |
|
|
That the employees were not entitled to the notice claimed, or any notice, from the employer; alternatively, that hey had already received far in excess of the maximum notice as required by the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973 and that they themselves had voluntarily, and through their agent, agreed to leave their employment with the employer and were therefore not dismissed for the purposes and within the meaning of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. |
||||
|
That by reason of the fact that it was the employees own choice of action, they were not entitled to the relief claimed or any relief under the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973. |
||||
|
The said Tribunal misdirected itself in law and in fact in holding that the employees were entitled to compensation and that they were dismissed. |
||||
|
The appeal was unsatisfactory. |
||||
|
The decision was against the evidence and against the weight of the evidence. |
||||
|
The Tribunal was incorrect in law in holding that the employees were entitled to the notice, the compensation and were dismissed. |
||||
|
The Tribunal was incorrect in law in holding that the employees did not leave voluntarily and were dismissed. |
||||
|
The Tribunal was incorrect in law and in fact in holding that the employees could not have worked on if they so wished. |
176.
asked the Minister for Labour the public or local authorities, or Departments of State, which have taken proceedings in the courts against decisions of the Employment Appeals Tribunal in relation to the scope of the Redundancy Payments Acts, the Minimum Notice Act and the Unfair Dismissals Act; and the bodies which have secured decisions from the Employment Appeals Tribunal, against employees, on the scope of the Acts, indicating the provision of the Act(s) in each case.
The Limerick Health Authority appealed to the High Court in 1969 against a tribunal decision relating to the scope of sections 4 and 7 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, with respect to the right to redundancy. The employee had been awarded redundancy by the tribunal but the tribunal's decision was reversed by the High Court.
I am not aware of any proceedings having been taken by any public or local authorities or Departments of State against decisions of the tribunal in relation to the scope of the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act, 1973, or the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977.
A definitive reply to the second part of the question would require an exhaustive examination of the over 11,000 cases which the tribunal has heard since its establishment. I am aware of one relevant case, however. In 1976, the Department of Education successfully defended an appeal to the tribunal on the issue of the scope of section 7 of Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 as amended by section 4 of the 1971 Act in relation to the replacement of an unqualified teacher by a qualified teacher.
177.
asked the Minister for Labour the public or local authorities, or Government Departments, presently defending or opposing claims made by employees to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, indicating the provision of the Act at issue in each case.
The authorities involved are as follows, the relevant Act* being indicated in brackets:
CIE (UDA, MNTE, RPA). Department of Agriculture (UDA, MNTE). Eastern Health Board (RPA). Dublin County Council (UDA). B + I Line (UDA). Western Health Board (UDA).
Apart from the Western Health Board and the Dublin County Council cases which pertain to sections 2 and 9 respectively of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, the other appeals have not yet been heard and in advance of a hearing it is not possible to say which section or sections of Acts are involved.