Charpentier v Verizon Ireland Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms Justice Bolger
• Judgment Date: 14 November 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 628
• Docket Number: [Record No. H-MCA 2024/493]

In the Matter of An Appeal Pursuant to Section 46 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015

Between

Jean-Phillipe Charpentier

Appellant

and

Verizon Ireland Limited

Respondent

and

The Labour Court

Notice Party

and

The Attorney General

Notice Party

[2025] IEHC 628

[Record No. H-MCA 2024/493]

THE HIGH COURT

Appeal on a point of law – Errors of law – Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Act 1996 s. 17 – Appellant seeking orders setting aside two determinations of the Labour Court – Whether the Labour Court fell into errors of law

Facts: The appellant, Mr Charpenier, appealed to the High Court seeking orders setting aside two determinations of the Labour Court, TID 241 and TID 242, and orders against the respondent, Verizon Ireland Ltd, seeking the relief that had been sought from the Labour Court as well as declarations. The appellant asked the High Court to make an Article 267 TFEU reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), if necessary. The following issues fell to be addressed by the Court: (i) arising from Labour Court determination TID 242, whether the Labour Court’s upholding of the respondent's refusal to fund the appellant's attendance at the Hamburg conference was an appealable point of law and if so, whether the respondent’s refusal was lawful; (ii) arising from determination TID 241, whether the Labour Court was correct in its interpretation of s. 17 of the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Act 1996 that the section does not cover a collective dispute; (iii) from both Labour Court determinations, whether the Labour Court erred in determining that the appellant's application for costs was moot where his appeals were not upheld.

Held by Bolger J that the law was sufficiently clear for the High Court to determine the issues and therefore she did not consider it necessary or appropriate to make a reference to the CJEU. She held that the Labour Court fell into the following errors of law in the impugned determinations: (1) in its narrow interpretation of s. 17 as excluding any collective complaints and in its failure to consider the provisions of Directive 2009/38/EC (the Directive) in doing so; (2) in finding that s. 17 only protected individual members of the European Works Council (EWC) qua individuals and in disallowing the appellant's representative capacity claim on behalf of the employee of the EWC which he was representing; (3) in failing to examine the appellant's complaint that the EWC Academy’s Dr Aylnar’s advices were necessary and appropriate as expert costs properly incurred by the EWC for the purpose of applying the rights arising from the Directive which to be provided by central management; (4) in failing to consider the appellant’s application for costs simply because the appeals had not been upheld; and (5) in failing to consider the appellant’s argument that the provisions of the 1996 Act and the Directive, including on deterrence, required the Labour Court to consider the application for costs and/or for compensation even where the appeal was not upheld and to consider whether the respondent could or should be required to reimburse some or all of the legal expenses incurred by the appellant having regard to the requirements of s. 17(1A) depending on the circumstances and facts that were put before the Labour Court.

Bolger J held that the impugned parts of both determinations of the Labour Court should be set aside.

Appeal allowed.

Counsel for the appellant: Owen Keany BL, Anthony Kerr SC

Counsel for the respondent: Rosemary Mallon BL, Eileen Barrington SC

Counsel for the Attorney General: Desmond Ryan BL, Caren Geoghegan SC

JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Bolger dated this 14th day of November 2025

1 . This is an appeal on a point of law arising from two determinations of the Labour Court, TID 241 and TID 242. The appellant seeks orders setting aside both determinations and orders against the respondent employer seeking the relief that had been sought from the Labour Court as well as the following declarations:

“ 6. If necessary, a Declaration that the provisions of section 17 and the Second Schedule of the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Act 1996, as amended, and specifically those provisions relating to the requirement to provide training and expert assistance to EWC's, are incompatible with Directive 2009/38/EC.

9. If necessary, a Declaration that the inability of the Workplace Relations Commission and or the Labour Court to award EWC members their legal costs when seeking to apply the rights arising from the Directive and/or to represent the collective interests of the employee is incompatible with Directive 2009/38/EC.”

2 . The appellant also asks this Court to make an Article 267 TFEU reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), if necessary. For the reasons set out in my judgment, I am satisfied that the law is sufficiently clear for this Court to determine the issues and therefore I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to make a reference to the CJEU.

3 . I have found errors of law in the Labour Court's determinations and I will hear counsel further on the appropriate orders that should be made arising from my decision set out below.

Formatting of the Labour Court determinations

4 . Both determinations of the Labour Court run to several pages, TID 241 is 9 pages and TID 242 is 11 pages but neither have page or paragraph numbers. Not for the first time ( Hanley v PBR Restaurants Ltd (Trading as Fish Shack Café) [2025] IEHC 224), it has been difficult for this Court to accurately refer to the locations of extracts from the determinations. For obvious reasons, this is unsatisfactory for an appellate court tasked with reviewing the determination, as well as for anyone who wishes to cite an identifiable extract from it. It is to be hoped that this easily rectifiable, important issue will be addressed by the Labour Court in its formatting of future determinations.

Background

5 . Directive 2009/38/EC of 6 May 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “the Directive”) provides for the establishment of a European Works Council (hereinafter referred to as a “EWC”) to inform and consult employees in transnational operations. Ireland implemented the Directive by the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “TICEA”). The original Directive (94/45/EC) was the first adopted under the procedure contained in the Agreement on Social Policy annexed to Protocol 14 of the Maastricht Treaty and, thus, did not apply to the UK. This Directive was subsequently extended to the UK by Council Directive 97/74/EC, as a result of which, most EWCs migrated to the UK. That version was replaced in 2009 by the current Recast Directive. Following the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union, a number of multinational companies migrated their EWCs to Ireland. There is currently a proposal for an amendment to the Recast Directive, but this judgment only addresses the current law.

6 . The appellant is the Chair of the EWC for Verizon Communications Inc., an American multinational telecommunications conglomerate. The appellant is employed by Verizon France SAS. The respondent is Verizon's representative agent in the EU. In 2008, the respondent's EWC was migrated to Ireland and in the absence of an agreement, a new EWC was established under the subsidiary requirements provided for under the Second Schedule to TICEA. The issues raised in this case are novel as it is the first time the TICEA and the Directive have been considered by the Irish courts and there is currently no jurisprudence from the CJEU on the Directive.

The status of EWCs in Irish law

7 . EWCs are established throughout the EU pursuant to the national legislation implementing the Directive in each Member State, with some differences in how some Member States achieve the aims of the Directive. Unlike some of the other Member States, EWCs in Irish law do not have a separate legal personality. Because of that, the appellant brought a claim before the WRC in his capacity as chair of the EWC and was described by the Labour Court as having brought the complaint in “ a representative capacity”.

Relevant legislative provisions

8 . The relevant provisions of the Directive, and the Preamble thereto, are as follows:

“Recital (33): “In order to perform their representative role fully and to ensure that the EWC is useful, employees' representatives … must be able to receive the training they require.”

(35): “The Member States must take appropriate measures in the event of failure to comply with the obligations laid down in this Directive.”

(36): “ In accordance with the general principles of Community law, administrative or judicial procedures, as well as sanctions that are effective, dissuasive and proportionate in relation to the seriousness of the offence, should be applicable in cases of infringement of the obligations arising from this Directive.”

Article 9: “ The central management and the EWC shall work in a spirit of cooperation with due regard to their reciprocal rights and obligations.”

Article 10.1: “… the member of the EWC shall have the means required to apply the rights arising from this Directive, to represent collectively the interests of the employees of the Community-scale undertaking or Community—scale group of undertakings.”

10.4: “In so far as this is necessary for the exercise of their representative duties in an international environment the members of … the EWC shall be provided with training without loss of wages.”

11.2: “ Member States shall provide for appropriate measures in the event of failure to comply with this Directive; in particular, they shall ensure that adequate administrative or judicial procedures are available to enable the obligations deriving from this Directive to be enforced.”

Annex I (5): ...