Elganagy v Galopin Trawlers Ltd (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal on a point of law from a decision of the Labour Court under section 46 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. The Appellant was employed as a fisherman on a sea-going fishing vessel registered in the State, owned and operated by the Respondent. The Appellant alleged that the Respondent failed to comply with Article 6 of the European Communities (Workers on Board Seagoing Fishing Vessels) (Organisation of Working Time) Regulations 2003, specifically regarding adequate rest periods. The Appellant made a complaint to the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission, which was rejected by an adjudication officer and subsequently by the Labour Court on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The Labour Court held that it could not assume jurisdiction or disapply Irish law provisions which did not expressly confer such jurisdiction. The Appellant appealed this decision to the High Court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant is entitled to remedies specified in section 27(3) of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and to invoke procedures set out in sections 41 to 44 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 to enforce those remedies in respect of alleged breaches of Article 6 of the 2003 Regulations, despite the absence of express reference to section 27(1) or employee redress procedures in those Regulations.
2. Whether the Irish legal framework implementing EU Directives on working time should be interpreted to imply such remedies to ensure conformity with European Union law.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer and others v. Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldschut eV [2004] ECR 1-8835	Principle that national courts must interpret domestic law to avoid conflict with EU Directives and to give full effect to EU law.	The court applied this principle to interpret Irish law to imply remedies for breaches of Article 6 of the 2003 Regulations to ensure conformity with EU law.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the interaction between Irish domestic legislation and European Union Directives regarding working time, particularly the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, the Workplace Relations Act 2015, and the European Communities (Workers on Board Seagoing Fishing Vessels) (Organisation of Working Time) Regulations 2003. It noted that while the 2003 Regulations do not expressly provide for remedies under section 27 of the 1997 Act, such remedies must be implied to ensure compliance with EU law.

The court explained that the 1997 Act implements the 1993 Directive concerning working time and rest periods, which initially excluded sea fishing workers but was amended by the 2000 Directive to include them with special provisions. The 2003 Directive replaced earlier Directives and incorporated these provisions. Irish regulations for other sectors explicitly provide for remedies under section 27, but the 2003 Regulations do not explicitly do so for sea fishing workers.

The court held that national courts must interpret domestic law purposively and in conformity with EU law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to avoid discriminatory outcomes and to provide effective remedies. It considered that the absence of express reference to remedies in the 2003 Regulations must be read as an implied inclusion, as excluding such remedies would contravene EU law principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

The court rejected the Labour Court's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction, stating that courts and tribunals must assess their jurisdiction in light of EU law obligations and interpret national law accordingly. It further explained that the enforcement regime under the 2003 Regulations differs from that under the 1997 and 2015 Acts, but this difference does not justify denying remedies to workers in the sea fishing sector.

In conclusion, the court found that remedies under section 27 of the 1997 Act and procedures under the 2015 Act apply by necessary implication to breaches of Article 6 of the 2003 Regulations.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the appeal on the point of law and held that workers on sea-going fishing vessels are entitled to invoke remedies under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 and the procedures under the Workplace Relations Act 2015 for breaches of Article 6 of the 2003 Regulations by necessary implication.

This decision ensures that workers in the sea fishing sector enjoy effective and equivalent remedies for breaches of working time and rest period rights, consistent with EU law requirements. It clarifies that absence of express legislative provisions does not exclude such remedies where EU law mandates their availability. The ruling does not set a new precedent beyond the interpretation of existing legislative instruments in conformity with EU directives. The immediate effect is to confer jurisdiction on adjudication officers and the Labour Court to hear complaints under these provisions in the sea fishing sector.