I recall that when the Industrial Court was being conceived there was a specific objective to minimise, and in some cases, prohibit appeals from its judgments in order to prevent money being spent by wealthy employers to tie up unions and workers in expensive litigation and thereby frustrate the workings of the system. This objective was achieved primarily by the stratagem of prohibiting appeals against judgments of the Industrial Court—except on a point of law.
The relevant provision in the IRA under which the court is established reads as follows:
“(6) The opinion of the court as to whether a worker has been dismissed in circumstances that are harsh and oppressive or not in accordance with the principles of good industrial relations practice and any order for compensation or damages including the assessment thereof made pursuant to subsection (5) shall not be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court on any account whatever.”
This has been a fundamental pillar in the practice of industrial relations in this country since at least July 1972.
Now, the recent judgment of the Industrial Court ordering reinstatement of the 68 dismissed workers at NP is reported to include the explicit characterisation of NP’s action as being “harsh, oppressive and contrary to the principles and practice of good industrial relations”—the magic words that normally protect an Industrial Court judgment from being “appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court on any account whatever.”
On Thursday the Court of Appeal granted NP and its lawyers a stay of execution until Tuesday next week, requiring them to file grounds of appeal and related arguments.
Their preliminary arguments quoted in the press posit that “among other things, the order by the court for the immediate reinstatement of the workers was contrary to law...that the Industrial Court exceeded its authority in arriving at the decision to reinstate the workers...and that the appeal was in the best interests of the company (NP) and the country!”
If NP succeeds on any of these grounds we will have witnessed a watershed in the practice of industrial relations generally and specifically in the limitation of the powers of the Industrial Court. Workers, trade unions and employers should watch, with more than a passing interest, how this case plays out.
Ashton S Brereton