O'Leary v Minister for Transport

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 03 February 1998
• Date: 03 February 1998
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 94 of 1997]
• Court: Supreme Court

O'Leary v. Minister for Transport

Rita O' Leary

Applicant

and

The Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications

Respondent

[S.C. No. 94 of 1997]

Supreme Court

Practice and procedure - Appeal from Labour Court to High Court - Appeal on point of law only - Point of law distinguished from that of fact - Whether valid appeal on point of law - Employment Equality Act, 1977(No. 16), s. 21 (4).

Practice and procedure - Point of law not raised in High Court - Whether such point can be raised on appeal to Supreme Court.

Employment law - Discrimination - Decision of Labour Court - Adequacy of reasons given - Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974 (No. 15).

The applicant claimed that she was entitled to the same pay and conditions as two male radio operators as she was engaged in "like work" as defined by s. 3 of the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974. After conducting a thorough investigation, and writing a comprehensive report, the equality officer concluded that the applicant was not engaged in like work as claimed.

On appeal by the applicant to the Labour Court and subsequently, the High Court, the equality officer's findings were endorsed.

The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the Labour Court erred in law in finding that Dublin Airport was an aeronautical station and in failing to give adequate reasons for its decision, that the reasons given by the Labour Court were inadequate and that the High Court erred in finding no unlawful discrimination. The respondent submitted that there was no valid appeal on a point of law.

Held by the Supreme Court (Hamilton C.J., Keane and Murphy JJ.) in dismissing the appeal, 1, that the facts to support a claim of unlawful discrimination must be established before the Labour Court. The facts were not established there and therefore the controversy must end with that failure.

2. That as one of the grounds of appeal to the Supreme Court contained a submission on European law not raised in the High Court the Supreme Court declined to entertain any submission thereon.

3. That, when the Labour Court endorsed the conclusions contained in the report of the equality officer, the adequacy of the Court's reasons and the facts upon which the judgment was based could be judged by reference to such report.

4. That the only valid point of law raised was immaterial to the appeal as it did not impact on the validity of the equality officer's essential findings of fact. It related solely to the qualifications required of the radio operators and not to the demands of the work under comparison.

Obiter dictum: The possibility of establishing equality of demands or identifying the basis for any inequality must be enhanced in proportion to the degree of similarity between the allegedly different works.

Cases mentioned in this report:-

Anheuser Busch Inc. v. Controller of Patents [1987] I.R. 329; [1988] I.L.R.M. 247.

Bates v. Model Bakery Ltd. [1993] 1 I.R. 359; [1993] I.L.R.M. 22.

Cork Corporation v. Cahill [1987] I.R. 478.

Edwards v. Bairstow [1956] A.C. 14; [1955] 3 W.L.R. 410; [1955] 3 All E.R. 48.

Golding v. The Labour Court [1994] E.L.R. 153.

Irish Shipping Ltd. v. Adams (Unreported, High Court, Murphy J., 30th January, 1987.).

Mara v. Hummingbird [1982] I.L.R.M. 421.

O'Kelly v. Trusthouse Forte plc [1983] I.C.R. 728.

The State (Daly) v. Minister for Agriculture [1987] I.R. 165; [1988] I.L.R.M. 173.

Appeal from High Court.

The facts are summarised in the headnote and are set out fully in the judgment of Murphy J.,infra.

Pursuant to s. 21 (4) of the Employment Equality Act, 1977, by way of special summons dated the 30th November, 1993, the applicant appealed the decision of the Labour Court dated the 17th June, 1993, to the High Court.

The appeal was heard by the High Court (Barron J.) on the 19th and 20th December, 1996, and was dismissed.

By notice of appeal dated the 12th March, 1997, the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court (Hamilton C.J., Keane and Murphy JJ.) on the 11th December, 1997.

Cur. adv. vult.

Hamilton C.J. 3rd February, 1998

I agree with the judgment about to be delivered by Murphy J.

Keane J.

I agree also with the judgment about to be delivered by Murphy J.

Murphy J.

The applicant (Ms. Rita O'Leary) is and has been for a number of years a communications assistant employed by the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications (the respondent) in the Aviation and Marine Communication Service (AMCS) office at Dublin Airport. The applicant together with two other communication assistants, Carmel Skehan and Nora O'Sullivan (the claimants) contended that under the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, they were entitled to the same rate of basic pay, overtime, shift allowance and pension rights as two male radio operators (the comparators) also employed by the respondent at the...