The Irish Supreme Court has ruled that the Garda Representative Association (GRA) had no legal right to be consulted before the introduction of the Public Service Management (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014.
By way of background in 2012 a briefing was held in the Department of Justice and Equality regarding proposals to change sick leave provisions for the public service. Representatives of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the GRA were present. What followed was 20 months of discussions and negotiations regarding the reform, including whether it would be applicable to members of the Gardai. It had been mooted that a special derogation should apply to the Gardai given restriction on the force to engage in industrial action.
In December of 2013, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform signed the Public Service (Sick Leave) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 124 of 2014) (the ‘Regulations’) which amended the sick leave regime for public servants and that it would apply to members of the Garda Siochana. This decision was not relayed to the GRA at this time.
The central issue raised in these proceedings concerned the extent to which the law may impose an obligation to consult before introducing measures proposed under the Regulations. Did the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2013 Act and the 2005 Garda Siochana Act impose an obligation on the Minister to consult the GRA when introducing new measures? The GRA had initially brought judicial review proceedings in the High Court in 2014 to challenge the lawfulness of the Regulations which brought about alterations in the sick pay regime for public servants. The claim before Judge Kearns was rejected and the applicants appealed to the Court of Appeal where the appeal was once again dismissed.
Chief Justice Clarke delivering judgement on behalf of the Supreme Court found there was no legal obligation to have consulted the GRA on the introduction of the new regime. Clarke CJ was satisfied that the relevant statutes did not confer any obligations upon the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to formally consult. Clarke CJ found that the Regulations were introduced under the Act of 2013 notwithstanding any other legislative provision. Though Clarke CJ said that the GRA may have been entitled to some engagement prior to the introduction of the Regulations, there was no established right to any specific form of process and the entitlement could only extend to a generalised form of consultation.
On the facts of the case, Clarke CJ ruled, no breach of any such general entitlement had been established and the appeal was dismissed.
Click here to read the full judgement.