Part of a Supreme Court judgment by Mr Hugh O'Flaherty was quoted by a Minister in support of a Bill designed to resolve industrial disputes not covered by normal bargaining arrangements, such as that involving Ryanair baggage-handlers in 1998.
The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill represented a measured response to a number of difficult disputes in recent years, said Mr Tom Kitt, Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
In framing Partnership 2000, the previous national agreement, both ICTU and IBEC had recognised the need to modernise our industrial relations procedures and institutions. One agreed initiative had been the establishment of a high-level group to consider detailed proposals submitted by the Congress on the recognition of unions and the right to bargain.
The group had reaffirmed that where negotiating arrangements were in place, the most effective means of resolving differences between employers and unions was by voluntary collective-bargaining. It addressed the problems which arose in the case of disputes where negotiating arrangements were not in place, advocating two distinct procedures.
The first of these had been incorporated into a code of practice on voluntary dispute resolution by the Labour Relations Commission, which was circulated by his Department yesterday.
Where an employer failed to avail of the voluntary approach by use of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court, a trade union could activate referral to the court for a procedure culminating in a legally binding outcome.
Under the Bill, an investigation by the Labour Court would result in a recommendation. Failing agreement on the recommendation, the court could issue a determination which had binding effect for 12 months.
If matters had not been resolved, the court could review its determination and issue a final determination without a time limit as to its effect. Where an employer failed to comply, an enforcement order could be sought in the circuit court.
Mr Kitt said the procedures he had outlined in both the code of practice and the Bill had been put succinctly by Mr Justice O'Flaherty in his Supreme Court judgment in the Nolan Transport case when he had stated: "The State, representing the rest of us ordinary citizens and taxpayers, has a very keen interest in seeing to the harmonisation of industrial relations. We all stand to lose too much where there is strife and conflict. We should now have advanced sufficiently in our respect for democracy and the rule of law and all its refinements to work out a better way.
"At this stage of our development, this country should be an example . . . on how to avoid industrial conflict, and, when conflict does arise, on how to resolve it speedily. That is good for everyone; it will lead to more employment and increased trade."
The judge said employers had an obligation to accord trade unions a measure of respect, representing as they did the rights of workers. Mr Kitt said the Bill would provide an avenue for the processing of claims without recourse to industrial action. The Bill passed the second stage.