Following delivery of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v. Adjudication Officer and WRC, Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 on 6 April 2021, and the consequential orders made on foot thereof on 15 April 2021, a number of procedural changes are required to procedures at the WRC.
As a result of the judgment, in adjudicating upon most employment and equality rights claims, Adjudication Officers and members of the Labour Court are deemed to be administering justice that is, exercising limited functions and powers of a judicial nature within the meaning of Article 37 of the Constitution. It was the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court that in the context of the Zalewski case, the Adjudication Officer was engaged in the administration of justice.
While the Supreme Court rejected many of the constitutional challenges to the 2015 Act, and the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended, it did determine that in the context of the administration of justice, two aspects of the legislation and the procedures of the WRC, were incompatible with the Constitution.
Firstly, the Court held that it was incompatible with the administration of justice for there to be a blanket prohibition on hearings in public before an adjudication officer and it declared that sections 41(13) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and section 8(6) of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended, are unconstitutional.
Secondly, it held that the administration of the oath and the possibility of punishment for giving false evidence are an important part of ensuring that justice is done, in cases where there is serious and direct conflict of evidence. Therefore, the Court declared that the absence of any provision for the administration of an oath, or any possibility of punishment for the giving of false evidence in the hearing of claims heard under Part 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 or section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977, as amended, is inconsistent with the Constitution.
To read more on:
-
Changes as a result of the Supreme Court judgment
-
Hearings in Public
-
Arrangements around Public Hearing for Employment and Equality Rights cases
-
Cases where there is a serious and direct conflict of Evidence
-
Redundancy Cases
-
Legislative Response
-
WRC Procedures
-
Mediation
-
Cases concluded before 6 April 2021.
-
Communications with the WRC
-
Industrial Relations Disputes
please visit the WRC website via this link.
What does it mean to say that Adjudication Officers are exercising limited functions and powers of a judicial nature within the meaning of Article 37 of the Constitution?
O’Donnell J delivering the judgment for the majority explained as follows:
“The exercise of jurisdiction captured by Article 37 is the administration of justice. The Article merely permits it to be carried out by a body other than a court and by a person other than a judge in a context that is non-criminal and limited. […] the function being performed and the power being exercised must comply with the fundamental components of independence, impartiality, dispassionate application of the law, openness, and, above all, fairness, which are understood to be the essence of the administration of justice.”