Finbarr Flood is the first former managing director of a private sector company to chair the Labour Court. Although the post alternates between nominees of IBEC and ICTU, all of his predecessors from the management side have been senior public sector executives or industrial relations specialists.

But Mr Flood is unique in other ways. He is the first former professional footballer to take the job and was the first managing director of Guinness Ireland to rise from the ranks. He left school at 14 to become a messenger at St James's Gate.

Both his grandfathers and his father worked at the brewery. In those days, he recalls, the company was "a slumbering giant". It was a very autocratically run operation. The Guinness family was no longer involved in the direct management of the firm. "They were there in the background and there was always a perception that nothing bad could happen so long as they were involved."

During his early years with the brewery, Mr Flood was more interested in football than a business career. He would travel to Hollyhead every Friday night to play for the town's team. It was a team made up of "either beginners or has-beens". From there he went on to Shelbourne and Greenock Morton.

Part of the arrangement with Morton was that he would live in Scotland and play full-time, but he managed to commute and keep the day job. "I was happy to be paid for what I enjoyed doing, but I didn't want to be dependent on it, having to do it for a living," he says.

He spent another five years with Sligo Rovers, again as a commuting player, until a leg injury put paid to his soccer career. Flood was 30 by then, married, with a family. He was suddenly offered promotion from the manual operative grades to road transport manager. He never looked back. By the time he left the position of managing director in 1994, he had been with the company for 41 years. During that period, he had been involved in three major restructuring programmes, including a £100 million rebuilding scheme at the brewery and a significant reduction in the workforce. After the introduction of the last programme of change - Plan 2000 - which ensured the future viability of the plant within the group, he felt it was time to move on.

Mr Flood never lost the common touch nor does he seem to have allowed his preoccupation with the bigger financial picture to weaken his interest in people. His last initiative at the company was the production of a photographic history, The Guinness Dublin Brewery, St James's Gate, issued the day after he left the company. A copy was given to every employee to remind them of the changes they had all gone through.

Finbarr Flood says that he never set out to become a member of the Labour Court where he served as a deputy chairman for four years. When word spread that he was leaving Guinness he decided to "come in and have a go". He had been a successful personnel manager at Guinness's before becoming managing director, but it had always been as a protagonist in negotiations rather than as an adjudicator.

He says he didn't find the transition difficult, but it was strange "not to be in the middle of the hurly burly". In some ways he has found it less stressful, because once a case is completed "the implementation falls to other people".

He also feels that his experience running "the most famous brewery in the world, and trying to get the best for your company in a large multinational group" gives him an insight into the problems facing many Irish managers. Financial literacy is also an increasingly important component in being able to assess the validity of arguments put forward by both sides to the court.

The number of cases coming before the court has reached a plateau of about 600 over recent years, but their complexity has increased. There are fewer straight pay claims, because of national agreements, but a lot more cases about "managing change - the other type of case involves legal claims and an increasing number of lawyers are appearing in the court".

He accepts people have a right to legal representation and may feel the need to consult lawyers particularly in areas such as discrimination and sexual harassment. But he points out that "there is a responsibility on the court to ensure it gets all the information" and to adjudicate fairly on it - regardless of how people are represented.

"Quite often people come on their own and sit across the table from three or four senior counsel and fight their case. It is an indication of the confidence people have nowadays in themselves and we like to encourage that." He refuses to give his views on trade union recognition, which is causing so many strains in the relationship between the social partners. The court is there, he adds, to administer the laws, not to make them. Union recognition "is an issue being addressed by the social partners", he says.

He believes the system of parties voluntarily appearing before the Labour Court has worked well. "But then you get situations where a very high profile company refuses to come to the court, or a group, or union rejects a recommendation."

He believes that "by and large the system has worked extremely well. I would argue that the more adversarial approach to industrial relations is becoming a thing of the past. Overall we have moved a hell of a way down the path towards partnership and teamwork and sharing benefits".

He feels strongly that the respective roles of the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission should be respected. He accepts that many companies have developed their own mediation systems and that up to 40 per cent of industrial relations problems "do not come here at all, either because they don't need the service, or have alternatives".

He also accepts that the court and the State industrial relations machinery must monitor change and be prepared to adapt in order to remain relevant. However, be believes that the status of the Labour Court as the "court of last resort must be preserved. Otherwise the consequences could be disastrous for the industrial relations system.

"One of the issues today is that the country is doing so well. I believe a company is at its most vulnerable when most successful financially, because people go for short-term solutions, or soft options. I think the same applies to a country and that is why the Labour Court has to remain relevant and respected."

He refuses to be drawn on whether the Government has a tendency to intervene in high profile disputes prematurely. But before the interview ends, he does add: "It is important that the court still be seen as finality. It would be regressive if it was seen as the penultimate rather than final step in resolving disputes."

He is far more forthcoming on the new responsibilities confronting the court as a result of the increasing amount of legislation governing health and safety at work, and the Working Time Act. "It's the first time since the introduction of equal pay that there has been so much change," he says.

He also points out that changes in public service negotiating procedures mean an additional 40,000 workers in the health service and local authorities will now be able to refer their cases to the court. The court is not looking for additional resources at the moment to handle the extra workload.

"We'll see how it goes. There could be an initial burst and then it could settle down."

People have to take the new legislation on issues like working time and the rights of people with disabilities "on its merits". "It hopefully means more benefits, but they are not necessarily financial. The new legislation aims at improving working conditions, rights and opportunities for people," he says.

He is also concerned about the "changing of the guard" currently taking place in the trade union movement and, to a lesser extent, employer bodies. Social partnership had worked over the past decade because it was created by people on both sides of the fence who had been able to build trusting relations.

"For social partnership to work there has to be a hell of a lot of trust. A lot of players who were key players in the past have retired, and over the next few years even more will move on." Even in the court itself, Mr Flood points out that over a four-year period the chairman and two deputy chairmen have come and gone. "I don't think you can just wheel people in and make them trust each other. That settling-in time will be coming at quite a critical stage, when national agreements are being renegotiated. It will require a tolerance and understanding to make agreement possible." Asked how he thinks he is regarded by the social partners, he says: "I think after four years [as deputy chairman], people will have formed their own ideas. It's a bit like sport. You're only as successful as your last game, and how successful you are depends on who's viewing your game."