An Stat (MacFhearraigh) v MacGamhnia

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1998
• Date: 01 January 1998
• Court: High Court

(H.C.)

State (MacFhearraigh)

and

MacGamhnia

- Employment Appeals Tribunal - Judicial review -Mandamus - Hearing before the Employment Appeals Tribunal - Applicant employee requiring hearing in the Irish language - Employer's representative informing tribunal that certain of the evidence for the employer would be given in the English language - Evidence of the first witness for the employer in English - Whether the representative of the employee had a right to cross-examine in the Irish language the witness who had given his evidence in the English language - Ruling of the tribunal not to permit the cross-examination through Irish on the grounds that the legal representative of the employee had knowledge of both languages - Addendum by Tribunal chairman to effect that the solicitor for the employer would be obliged to cross-examine the employee in the Irish language if he were capable of doing so - Applicant contesting the ruling of the Tribunal - Adjournment to allow the issue arising on the legal principles to be put before the High Court.

The applicant was dismissed from his position as a carpentry instructor in the training centre of An Chomhairle Oiliúna (AnCo), Gweedore, County Donegal, and commenced proceedings at the Employment Appeals Tribunal under the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, seeking relief against the employer. When the case came on for hearing before the Employment Appeals Tribunal (consisting of three members) in the month of July, 1982, the applicant wished that the case be heard in the Irish language as far as possible but the Tribunal was informed by the representative of the employer that certain of its witnesses would be giving their evidence in the English language. Since the preliminary question regarding the language of the hearing had arisen, the Tribunal had to make its decision on the procedure to be adopted. The Chairman of the Tribunal explained that each party had its own choice as to the language in which it would present its side of the action before the Tribunal. As the employer was obliged to go first in order, the first witness for the employer gave his evidence and did so in the English language. When that witness had finished his evidence, counsel for the applicant began to cross examine that witness and he spoke in the Irish language. When the members of the Tribunal had consulted among themselves, the Chairman ruled that the cross-examination in the Irish language would not be allowed since the legal representatives of the applicant could understand the English language. As an addendum to that ruling, the Chairman stated that the solicitor for the employer would be obliged to cross-examine the evidence of the applicant through the Irish language should he have the capacity to do so, or if the employer or the witnesses of the employer could not understand whatever evidence the applicant gave in the Irish language, that that evidence could be translated by the Chairman, or, should it be necessary, by a special interpreter. The applicant was not satisfied with that ruling and upon application on his behalf the hearing before the Tribunal was adjourned to afford him the opportunity to challenge the ruling (furnished to him in writing) of the Tribunal as to the procedure to be adopted, in the High Court. On the 16...