153 / 270
GAZETTE
SEPTEMBER 1980
The Employment Appeals Tribunal
By GARY BYRNE, Solicitor
Employers/Employees
and
Trade
Unions
have
traditionally avoided settling their differences in courts of
law preferring to tackle their problems in a more
informal and speedier manner, while retaining their rights
to extra-legal sanctions.
This reluctance of the parties to enter court is
understandable in light of the comment of Geoffrey Lane,
J., in the case of
Ford Motor Co. Ltd.,
v.
AUIFW
and
others
119691 W.L.R. 339, that the court was "merely
concerned with the strict legal problems involved,
regardless of their impact and regardless of their
consequence". The legislature therefore, were faced with
the difficult problem, in drafting the labour legislation of
the 1970's, as to how to enforce the various Acts. Those
Acts requiring to be dealt with were the Unfair Dismissals
Act, 1977, the Minimum Notice and Terms of
Employment Act, 1973, and the Redundancy Payments
Acts.
There was a need for what the Donovan Commission
(Chap. X paragraph 578) called "an easily accessible,
speedy, informal and inexpensive procedure for settlement
of disputes". The problem was neatly sidestepped by
revamping the old Redundancy Appeals Tribunal, and
renaming it the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
The Redundancy Appeals Tribunal was established
under S.39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, its
scope was widened by S. 11 of the Minimum Notice and
Terms of Employment Act, 1973, and further extended
by the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and under S. 18 of
that Act, the title was changed to the "Employment
Appeals Tribunal".
The Tribunal consists of a Chairman and three Vice-
Chairmen, with legal qualifications, and a panel of twenty
four ordinary members, twelve nominated by I.C.T.U.,
and twelve by employer organisations. Each Division of
the Tribunal consisted of a Chairman, and two of the
ordinary members, one each from the I.C.T.U., and
employer panels. The Tribunal is based in the Dept. of
Labour building in Mespil Road, Dublin, but also sits at
venues outside Dublin. In 1978, The Tribunal visited 69
such venues for 186 separate sittings.
The Employment Appeals Tribunal produces an
annual report, which is available from Government
Publications. These reports indicate the volume of the
work done by the Tribunal, and breaks it down into
various headings such as types of representation, number
of cases allowed or dismissed, etc.
The difficulty with these figures is that each claim
under cach Act is classified as an Appeal, when in actual
fact, one Appeal can consist of claims brought under the
three Acts, and the Claimant might only be successful in
one of these claims. A simpler, and in my opinion, more
accuratc method of assessing the effect of the Tribunal is
to survey decisions, as published monthly, for a period of
twelve months regardless of the date of filing of the claim,
or hearing of the claim.
Taking the 580 decisions published from January to
Dcccmbcr (inclusive) 1979, the figures arc as follows:
Table I Types of Claim
54% of claims included claims under the Min. Notice Act
51.3% of claims included claims under the U.D. Act
43.3% of claims included claims under the Redundancy
Acts.
Table II Representation
Claimants
34.5% of claimants represented themselves
28.6% of claimants were represented by Solicitors
— of these 39% used counsel
27.6% of claimants were represented by Trade Union
2.3% of claimants were represented by others
7.0% of claimants failed to appear
Respondents
35.5% of respondents were represented by Solicitors - of
these 27% used counsel
32.0% of respondents represented themselves
11.2% of respondents were represented by FUE
4.3% of respondents were represented by Construction
Industry Federation
5.% of respondents were represented by 'others'
12.00 of respondents failed to appear
Table III Results of Appeals
(a) Unfair
Dismissal
40.0% of Unfair Dismissal cases were successful with a
monetary total for the year of £146 , 138, with an average
award of £1,228.
12.0% of U.D. claims resulted in an order of re-
instatement
0.12% of U.D. claims resulted in an order of re-
engagement
2.5% of U.D. cases resulted in awards of Maximum
compensation.
In 3 U.D. cases, claimants were successful, but no
compensation was awarded.
In 1 case, there was held to be an Unfair Dismissal, but
that the employee contributed 100%
(h) Minimum
Notice
33% of Minimum Notice claims were successful.
(c)
Redundancy
35.5% of Redundancy claims were successful.
Table IV General
31.5% of all claims were struck out on the merits
14.5% of all cases were settled, and 69% of these
involved Solicitors
6% of cases were appeals from Rights Commissioners
0.9% of cases involved FLAC
In 4.0% of cases. Accountants appeared for Respondents
of eases where no appcarance was made by the
Respondents, 7.5% were Liquidators.
147