Morgan v The Labour Court; Morgan v The Labour Court & Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

These two appeals arise as appeals on a point of law from determinations of the Labour Court dated 9 February 2021. The Labour Court dismissed appeals from a decision of an Adjudication Officer (AO) of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) dated 23 October 2019. The AO had dismissed complaints lodged by the Appellant against the Notice Party, Company A, alleging discrimination contrary to section 77 of the Employment Equality Act 1988 (as amended) and section 81E of the Pensions Act 1990 (as amended).

The Appellant's complaints, lodged on 15 April 2019, concerned alleged discriminatory dismissal and denial of access to an injury gratuity under her pension scheme. The AO found that the Appellant had been dismissed in June 2015 and that subsequent complaints were out of time and barred by the principle of res judicata. The AO further found no discrimination or victimisation regarding her pension entitlements, noting that the Appellant was in receipt of an ill health retirement pension.

The Appellant appealed the AO's decisions to the Labour Court, which delivered separate determinations on the section 77 and section 81E complaints on 9 February 2021, dismissing both appeals. The Appellant then filed appeals against these Labour Court determinations to the High Court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Labour Court erred in law by addressing the substantive matters rather than preliminary issues in its determination of the section 77 and section 81E complaints.
2. Whether the Appellant was denied a fair opportunity to make submissions during the remote hearing before the Labour Court, thus constituting a breach of natural justice and jurisdictional error.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the Labour Court's decision incorrectly reflected that it had conducted a hearing on the substantive matters rather than preliminary issues, contrary to the agreed scope of the hearing.
• She argued that important preliminary jurisdictional issues had been raised prior to the hearing but she was not permitted to address them during the remote hearing, alleging she was removed from the virtual courtroom and thus denied a fair hearing.

Notice Party's Arguments (Company A)

• Company A, through affidavit evidence from an assistant principal officer, asserted that the remote hearing was conducted fairly and appropriately in accordance with natural justice.
• They acknowledged a brief technical issue during the hearing but maintained that the Appellant was given every opportunity to advance her case and make submissions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The High Court carefully reviewed the transcript of the Labour Court hearing and the submissions made by the parties. It found that the Labour Court had explicitly limited its hearing to preliminary issues, including whether there was a prima facie infringement of the Employment Equality Act within the cognisable period. The Court rejected the Appellant's contention that the Labour Court decision mistakenly addressed substantive matters.

Regarding the pension complaint, the Court found the Labour Court's determination that the Appellant received the ill health retirement pension she applied for and that no discrimination arose from the denial of an injury gratuity was legally sound.

On the allegation that the Appellant was denied the opportunity to make submissions during the remote hearing, the Court found no evidence to support this claim. Affidavit evidence from Company A's representative confirmed the hearing was conducted fairly and in accordance with natural justice, with the transcript corroborating that the Appellant was given full opportunity to present her case.

The Court noted that the Appellant's wider grievances, described as a vexatious campaign, were outside the scope of the appeals and did not demonstrate any error of law in the Labour Court determinations under review.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the two appeals against the Labour Court determinations.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Labour Court's dismissal of the Appellant's claims under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act and section 81E of the Pensions Act stands. No new legal precedent was established. The Appellant’s complaints regarding alleged discriminatory dismissal and pension entitlement were conclusively rejected on the basis of timing, prior adjudication, and absence of discrimination or victimisation.