European Law and the Workplace Relations Commission

Introduction

The competence of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) spans a wide range of workplace problems; however, it is crucial to acknowledge that certain matters, such as particular criminal cases or disagreements pertaining to constitutional or European Union law, may fall outside its scope. This assertion is valid even in cases when these issues bear significance for labour and employment legislation. In general, the Irish judicial system assumes the responsibility of addressing such circumstances within the appropriate court of law.

The Minister for Justice and Equality and The Commissioner of An Garda Síochána v WRC (C-378/17) involved a request for a preliminary ruling from the European Courts of Justice (ECJ) on whether a national body established by law in order to ensure enforcement of EU law in a particular area must be able to disapply a rule of national law that is contrary to EU law.

European Law in Ireland

The objective of EU legislation is to develop a comprehensive structure for ensuring equal treatment in the context of employment and occupation. This framework encompasses the prevention and elimination of discriminatory practises based on many factors, such as religion or belief, disability, age, and sexual orientation. It is imperative for Member States to provide the accessibility of legal and administrative procedures to individuals who perceive themselves as victims of unequal treatment, even in cases where the claimed discrimination took place in a terminated relationship.

According to Irish legislation, the administration of justice is to be carried out inside legally created courts, presided over by judges nominated in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Constitution. It is further stipulated that the High Court possesses complete original jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate upon all matters and inquiries, regardless of whether they pertain to legal or factual issues and encompassing both civil and criminal cases.

Ronald Boyle, along with two additional individuals, were deemed ineligible for participation in the recruitment process for new police officers within An Garda Síochána in Ireland on the basis of their age. The individuals lodged complaints with the Equality Tribunal, contending that the establishment of an upper age limit for recruitment is a kind of discriminatory practise. The Minister contended that the jurisdiction of the Equality Tribunal was deficient, as the action in question was under the purview of national legislation. Nevertheless, the Equality Tribunal continued with the examination of the complaints and duly deliberated on the jurisdictional matter raised by the Minister.

The judgement of the High Court to affirm the Minister's action was based on the determination that the Equality Tribunal did not possess the authority to issue a legally enforceable ruling that found national legislation to be inconsistent with European Union law. The Supreme Court of Ireland was approached by the Equality Tribunal, currently known as the WRC, to challenge its competence to invalidate elements of domestic legislation that it deems to be in conflict with European Union law. The examination conducted by the Supreme Court focused on the compliance of this division of jurisdiction with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness as established by the case-law of the Court of Justice.

European Union Law and the Workplace Relations Commission

The Supreme Court made the decision to suspend the ongoing legal proceedings and seek clarification on a specific matter through a preliminary ruling. The question to be referred was whether it is necessary to consider that the relevant statutory body, the WRC, had the authority to address a complaint regarding the violation of Union law by national legislation, and if the complaint is upheld, to override that legislation? This is in spite of the fact that according to national law, the authority to address challenges to the validity of legislation or to disapply legislation, on any grounds, is conferred upon a court established under the Constitution rather than the aforementioned statutory body.

Supremacy of EU Law

The ECJ has underscored the differentiation between the authority to invalidate a provision of national legislation that contradicts EU law and the authority to nullify such a provision, which entails rendering the provision invalid for all intents and purposes. The responsibility of selecting courts and institutions to assess the legitimacy of a national law and establishing the legal remedies and processes for challenging its legality lies with the Member States. Nevertheless, the idea of the primacy of EU law requires that national courts must fully enforce EU law, thereby refraining from independently applying any contradictory provisions of national law. Any provision within a domestic legal system, as well as any legislative, administrative, or judicial practise that could hinder the efficacy of EU law by limiting the authority to disregard national legislative provisions, which may impede the full implementation of directly applicable EU regulations, is  inconsistent with the fundamental principles of EU law.

In the current scenario, the Irish legislative body made the decision to delegate the responsibility of enforcing adherence to Directive 2000/78 to the WRC. According to section 77(1) of the Equality Acts, individuals who believe they have experienced discrimination in violation of the Equality Acts have the right to seek compensation for the perceived injury they have endured by submitting their case to the WRC.

The concept of primacy of EU law mandates that the WRC is obligated to afford legal safeguards to individuals in accordance with EU law, and to guarantee its complete efficacy by disregarding any domestic laws that may conflict with it. The aforementioned principle holds significant importance in guaranteeing the implementation of non-discrimination measures within the realm of work and occupation. In the event that a governing authority, such as the WRC, is unable to identify a national law that contradicts Directive 2000/78 and subsequently opts to invalidate it, the efficacy of EU regulations pertaining to equality in employment and occupation would be diminished.

Conclusion

The unity and efficacy of EU legislation cannot be compromised by national laws, including constitutional measures. The principle of the primacy of EU law necessitates that entities take all requisite actions to guarantee the complete effectiveness of EU legislation, therefore invalidating any national provisions or legal precedents that conflict with EU law. This implies that entities should refrain from seeking or anticipating the nullification of these rules or legal precedents through legislative or constitutional mechanisms.

In summary, it is imperative to interpret EU law, specifically the principle of primacy of EU law, as prohibiting national legislation, such as the one under consideration in the primary proceedings. This legislation pertains to a national entity that is legally mandated to enforce EU law in a specific domain but lacks the authority to invalidate a national law that contradicts EU law.