Cork Corporation v Cahill

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Murphy
• Judgment Date: 22 May 1987
• Neutral Citation: 1987 WJSC-HC 1417
• Docket Number: 347 Sp/1985,[1985 No. 347 SP]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 22 May 1987

1987 WJSC-HC 1417

THE HIGH COURT

347 Sp/1985

CORK CORPORATION v. CAHILL

LORD MAYOR ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OF CORK

APPELLANTS

AND

LUCIE CAHILL, ITA MURPHY, ANNETTE MEHEGAN AND AQUINAS KELLY

RESPONDENTS

Citations:

EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT 1977 S3(4)

EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT 1977 S19(1)

EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT 1977 S19(5)

EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT 1977 S19

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION (PAY) ACT 1974 S8(5)

EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT 1977 S23

EMPLOYMENT EQUALITY ACT 1977 S23(1)

Synopsis:

EMPLOYMENT

Discrimination

Labour Court - Reference - Time limit - Extension - Propriety - Appeal from award of compensation by the Labour Court - The respondent, who was an employee of the appellant corporation, claimed that she had been the victim of compensatable discrimination by the appellant and she claimed compensation - The alleged act of discrimination had first occurred more than six years before 16/12/83 when the respondent first complained to the appellant about the alleged discrimination - The dispute between the parties was referred to the Labour Court on 14/2/84 pursuant to s.19 of the Act of 1977 - Sub-section 5 of that section states that, save only where a reasonable cause can be shown, a reference under s.19 shall be lodged not later than six months from the date of the first occurrence of the act alleged to constitute the discrimination - The appellant submitted that the reference was statute barred - The Labour Court was satisfied, in the "light of the submissions made indicating in the first instance that the claim has been actively pursued" by the respondent, that reasonable cause had been shown pursuant to s.19, sub-s. 5, of the Act - Subsequently, the Labour Court awarded the respondent compensation in a sum equivalent to 2.64 hours pay per week from 1977 to 16/12/83, plus #200 for the respondent's distress - The appellant appealed to the High Court - At the hearing of the appeal to the High Court, it appeared from the affidavits filed by the parties that the respondent first alleged discrimination in a complaint made to her local trade-union representative in February, 1981, and that the trade union's full-time officials were not informed of the complaint until October, 1983 - There was no evidence before the High Court describing the nature of the active pursuit mentioned in the ruling of the Labour Court or relating to any of the respondent's activities from the passing of the Act of 1977 until February, 1981 - Held, in dismissing the appeal, that, in the absence of the record of the proceedings before the Labour Court or a direct challenge to the manner in which the Labour Court had exercised its jurisdiction, it must be presumed that there had been evidence before that court establishing facts which constituted reasonable cause within the meaning of s.19, sub-s.5, of the Act of 1977 - Held that it had not been shown that the Labour Court had erred in computing the amount of compensation awarded pursuant to ss.22 and 23 of the Act of 1977 - Employment Equality Act, 1977, ss.19, 22, 23 - (1985/347 Sp - Murphy J. - 22/5/87) - [1987] IR 478

|Corporation of Cork v. Cahill|

PRACTICE

Time limit

Exception - Labour Court - Reference - Lodgment - Compensatable discrimination - Statute required lodgment of reference within six months from date of the first occurrence of the act alleged to constitute the discrimination - Exception where reasonable cause is shown - Lodgment of reference six years after the first occurrence of alleged discrimination - ~See~ Employment, discrimination - (1985/347 Sp - Murphy J. - 22/5/87) - [1987] IR 478

|Corporation of Cork v. Cahill|

TRIBUNAL

Decision

Reasons - Absence - Presumption - Labour Court - Finding that there was reasonable cause for the delay in lodging the reference to that court - Appeal to the High Court - No record of the proceedings before the Labour Court - Basis of finding did not appear in decision of the Labour Court - Held that it must be presumed that sufficient evidence of facts to justify the finding had been adduced before the Labour Court - ~See~ Employment, discrimination - (1985/347 Sp - Murphy J. - 22/5/87) - [1987] IR 478

|Corporation of Cork v. Cahill|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Murphy delivered the 22nd day of May, 1987.

2 This is an appeal by Cork Corporation in their capacity as employers of the Respondents from two dec'sions of the Labour Court dated the 28th April 1984 and the 3rd January 1985.

3 The Respondents are all employed by Cork Corporation as female attendants at the Appellants' swimming pools in Cork. The fourthly named Respondent has been employed in that capacity since 1981 and the other three Respondents have been similarly employed since dates prior to 1977. All of the Respondents are and were members of the Irish Transport and General workers' Union. In April 1976 the Appellants entered into an agreement with the I.T.G.W.U., acting on behalf of the employees of the Corporation in relation to the rostering of male and female attendants at the Appellants" swimming pools.

4 It was contended by the Respondents that this rostering agreement discriminated against them contrary to section 3 (4) of the Employment Equality Act 1977.

5 The right to refer a dispute as to whether or not one person has discriminated against another to the Labour Court in accordance with sub-section (1) of section 19 of the 1977 Act is subject (among other things) to the restriction contained in sub-section (5) of the same section which provides as follows:-

"Save only where a reasonable cause can be shown, a reference under this section shall be lodged not later than six months from the date of the first occurrence of the act alleged to constitute the discrimination".

6 It was the 6th of December 1983, more than six years after the occurrence of the events alleged to constitute the discrimination that the Respondents made a complaint to the Appellants. After some debate between the parties, the Respondents referred the case to the Labour Court on the 14th of February...