Title: Iarnrod Eireann -v- Social Welfare Tribunal and Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union (Notice Party) HIGH COURTJudgment was delivered by Mr Justice Murphy on November 11th 2007.
JUDGMENTIn a judicial review of a decision of a Social Welfare Tribunal to pay unemployment benefit to train-drivers who did not work for a period in 2000 arising out of a dispute with Iarnrod Eireann, Mr Justice Murphy ruled that the decision could not be overturned without new facts that materially affected the decision. He also ruled that no point of law arose.
BACKGROUNDThe issue goes back to the industrial dispute involving train-drivers, members of the Irish Locomotive Drivers Association (ILDA), which has since been subsumed into the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union (ATGWU). The men applied for social welfare payments for the period they were not working due to the dispute.
A Social Welfare Tribunal agreed they should receive payment for a period starting on June 19th, 2000, until the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission intervened in the dispute on August 10th. It affirmed this decision in a review requested by Iarnrod Eireann.
Iarnrod Eireann brought judicial review proceedings seeking to quash this adjudication. It stated that it had sought reasons for it, which had not been furnished by the Tribunal, necessitating the judicial review proceedings.
Under the Social Welfare (Consolidated) Act 1993 social welfare payments cannot be made if a person loses employment through a stoppage of work due to an industrial dispute.
The Social Welfare Tribunal based its decision on the fact that men had not been allowed to sign on for attendance at work on the basis of their old conditions when they turned up for work on June 19th. This was not disputed by the company.
However, it insisted that the men had been on strike, and stated that this had been an extremely disruptive action, not sanctioned by the unions recognised by Iarnrod Eireann, SIPTU and the NRBU, which had agreed to the new conditions.
ILDA had insisted its members were locked out, and had stated that they had not agreed to the new conditions under which they were invited to work from June 19th 2000.
Much of the argument before the High Court concerned whether what was involved was an organised, collective work stoppage or a lock-out, and it was pointed out that the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission had stated that there had been a collective agreement on the new conditions properly entered into by the appropriate and accredited trade unions.
Iarnrod Eireann stated in its submission to the court that its position had not been accurately reflected in the initial adjudication made by Social Welfare Tribunal. It sought a review of this under the Section 275 of the 1993 Act, producing newspaper articles and a book about the dispute which described the industrial action. The Tribunal found "that no new facts have been brought to its attention that they were not previously aware of".
The ATGWU put forward a statement of opposition to the Iarnrod Eireann application, and affidavits were also received by one of the train-drivers, Mr Brian Dunphy, and by the general secretary of the ATGWU, Mr Mick O'Reilly. They stated that the new information brought forward was second hand newspaper reports available at the first hearing, contended that Iarnrod Eireann had no financial stake in the matter and that the legislation did not permit an employer to appear before the deciding officer in relation to welfare payments.
DECISIONMr Justice Murphy pointed out that a judicial review is an examination of process, not an appeal.
"The submission of the notice party that the former members of the ILDA had not been allowed to sign on was uncontroverted," he said. "This would appear to have been a decisive basis for the decision of adjudication which was affirmed on review." He said there had been no finding on whether or not there had been a lockout.
"The court accepts that the burden is on the applicant, the primary facts will not be set aside by the court unless there is no evidence whatsoever to support them.
"The court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs sought."
The full text of this judgment is available on www.courts.ie
Solicitors: Michael Carroll, CIE (for the Applicant); Hamilton Turner, Dame St, Dublin 2 (for the Notice Party)