Onyemekeihia v The Minister for Justice and Equality

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Ms Justice Miriam O'Regan
• Judgment Date: 08 December 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] IEHC 697
• Docket Number: [Record No. 2022/225MCA]

In the Matter of An Appeal Pursuant to Section 90(1) of the Employment Equality Act 1998, As Amended

Between

Peter Onyemekeihia

Appellant

and

The Minister for Justice and Equality

Respondent

and

The Labour Court

Notice Party

[2023] IEHC 697

[Record No. 2022/225MCA]

THE HIGH COURT

Racial harassment – Irrationality – Obligation to provide reasons – Appellant seeking the relief of setting aside a decision of the Labour Court concluding that the appellant’s appeal before the Labour Court failed – Whether the Labour Court’s decision was irrational

Facts: The appellant, Mr Onyemekeihia, appealed to the High Court seeking the relief of setting aside a decision of the Labour Court of 20 July 2022 which decision concluded that the appellant’s appeal before the Labour Court failed. The matter had come before the Labour Court on foot of an appeal to it dated 14 July 2017 from a dismissal of the appellant’s claim by the adjudicating officer in the Workplace Relations Commission of 7 June 2017. The appellant had made two complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission respectively dated 18 May 2015 and 22 April 2016. The appellant’s grievance throughout related to the fact that while working as a prison officer in Mountjoy Prison he was subjected to constant racial abuse by some prisoners. The appellant’s argument was to the effect that the Labour Court’s decision was irrational in finding that the Irish Prison Service (IPS) has consistently taken a robust approach in dealing with racist behaviour, that the sanctions imposed under the P19 regime are meaningful or proportionate and that the IPS has an active anti-harassment policy in place, but, nevertheless, indicated that there is some merit in the argument that issues of racism and racial harassment may have not to date been given the level of attention that they require, leading the Labour Court to direct the IPS to conduct a thorough review of its anti-racism strategy and policies. The appellant argued that the indirect discrimination aspect of the appellant’s claim remained before the Labour Court and was addressed in submissions.

Held by O’Regan J that it was difficult to reconcile the finding of a consistently robust approach, together with meaningful and proportionate sanctions on foot of an active anti-harassment policy with a view that there is merit in an argument to the effect that the IPS has not given racism and racial harassment the level of attention that they require, nor consistent with the need to direct the IPS to conduct a thorough review of its anti-racism strategy and policies. She held that this was all the more so in circumstances where the Labour Court did not in its decision explain why it believed that these apparent contradictions are in fact harmonious. Furthermore, she could not accept the IPS argument to the effect that reference to racism not being given the level of attention required was obiter given that such lack of attention was central to the appellant’s argument that the IPS system was insufficient to provide a defence to the IPS under s. 14A of the Employment Equality Act 1998. She was satisfied that there was apparent contradiction within the decision which had not been explained and was therefore irrational. She held that there was nothing in the decision as a whole or in the discussion and decision section of the Labour Court determination to identify why the IPS arguments were successful and in that regard, she was satisfied that the principles of curial deference did not arise; as occurred in The State of Kuwait v Kanj [2021] IEHC 395, it was effectively a bald conclusion without an expression of why the conclusion was reached or without engaging in the conflicting evidence by the parties within the prism of the applicable law. She was satisfied that the Labour Court did not fulfil its obligation to provide reasons in accordance with the jurisprudence. She held that given the extent of the submissions made in advance of the hearing and the fact that in the decision of the Labour Court the appellant clearly failed in his appeal in respect of the availability or otherwise of a defence under s.14A, the Labour Court should have made some reference to indirect discrimination as opposed to ignoring it completely.

O’Regan J held that the appellant was entitled to an order setting aside the determination of the Labour Court of 20 July 2022.

Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT of Ms Justice Miriam O'Regan delivered on 8 December 2023

Issues

1 . The within matter comes before this Court on foot of a notice of motion of the appellant dated 29 August 2022 in which the appellant seeks the relief of setting aside a decision of the Labour Court of 20 July 2022 which decision concluded that the appellant's appeal before the Labour Court failed. The matter had come before the Labour Court on foot of an appeal to it dated 14 July 2017 from a dismissal of the appellant's claim by the adjudicating officer in the Workplace Relations Commission of 7 June 2017. The appellant had made two complaints to the Workplace Relations Commission respectively dated 18 May 2015 and 22 April 2016.

Background

2 . The appellant's grievance throughout relates to the fact that while working as a prison officer in Mountjoy Prison he was subjected to constant racial abuse by some prisoners. The complaints that were made by the appellant to the Irish Prison Service in respect of such racial abuse covers the period from 2009 to 2015, the appellant first commencing employment with the Irish Prison Service (hereinafter ‘the IPS’) in 2008. The appellant is a black man originally from Nigeria.

3 . The hearing before the Labour Court took place between 17 October 2018 and 19 October 2018 and was resumed on 20 April 2021 until 22 April 2021.

4 . Substantial submissions were lodged by the appellant to the Labour Court, bearing date 16 August 2017 and 12 April 2021, which made clear that the appellant's appeal to the Labour Court was confined to a claim that a defence under s.14A of the Employment Equality Act 1998 as amended (‘section 14A’) was not available to the appellant's employer (the IPS) in addition the appellant was maintaining a claim of indirect discrimination pursuant to the provisions of Article 2(1)(b) of the Race Directive 2000/43/EC.

5 . The Labour Court decision of 20 July 2022 was notified to the appellant on 25 July 2022. The decision ran to nine pages and set out the background to the appeal and the factual matrix. Thereafter, the Labour Court identified the issue in dispute between the parties to the effect that it was accepted that the appellant was subjected to racial abuse within the meaning of s.14A and complained that the IPS had not taken sufficient steps to discourage such behaviour and therefore could not rely on the provisions of s.14A. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that the prison environment was unique and what might be reasonably practicable in another environment may not be so in the prison environment. The respondent relied on the prison rules incorporating sanctions for prisoners who misconduct themselves as being sufficient to satisfy the reasonably practicable defence requirements contained in s.14A.

6 . Thereafter the decision set out a brief synopsis of the evidence given by eight witnesses to the Court (four of whom gave evidence on behalf of the appellant and four gave evidence on behalf of the IPO). The decision set out brief details of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and on behalf of the IPO and thereafter included a paragraph entitled “Discussion and Decision”, which paragraph reads as follows:-

“The Court accepts the thrust of the argument advanced on behalf of the Respondent in relation to the unique nature of the prison environment. In the Court's judgment, section14A cannot be interpreted as imposing a one size fits all approach when it comes to an employer's obligation to take reasonably practicable steps to prevent harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace.

The Court is satisfied, based on the evidence, before it that the Respondent has consistently taken a robust approach in dealing with allegations of racist behaviour by prisoners against officers – including the Complainant – and that the sanctions imposed under the P19 regime, in accordance with the relevant Guidelines, are meaningful and proportionate. In that regard, the Court's judgment, is that the Respondent has an active anti-harassment policy in place which is known to, and understood by, prisoners and officers and can, therefore, rely on the defence of section14A. The Complainant's appeal, therefore, fails.

The evidence adduced from the Respondent's witnesses indicate, in the Court's view, that the Respondent's approach to equality and diversity in the unique environment which is the prison system is an evolving one. It appears to the Court that there is some merit in the observation of Counsel for the Complainant to the effect that the issues of racism and racial harassment may have not, to date, been given the level of attention that they require by the Respondent, having been obscured in the generality of its approach to equality and diversity matters. In this regard, the Court directs that the Respondent conduct a thorough review of its anti-racism strategy and policies having regard to examples of international best practice in this area in the prison systems of other similar jurisdictions.

The Court so determines.”

7 . It is common case that the evidence before the Labour Court, on behalf of the appellant, was to the effect that the prison rules procedure was inadequate, that sanctions imposed on the prisoners within that system were either never implemented or briefly implemented and he was of the view that the sanctions were inadequate to deal with the racial abuse involved. The appellant accepted that the vast majority of prisoners do not engage...