On the 7th of July 2011 a ruling in the High Court found the Joint Labour Committee established to protect vulnerable workers unconstitutional. This has many workers confused and worried, with unanswered questions about the system.

What is constitutional?
For many decades workers have struggled to maintain their rights. Not surprising they have always had to fight considering the unbalanced relationship of power between employer and workers. Nevertheless, law of the land our constitution holds claims to a framework established to give every man, woman and child equal rights. All legislation be it primary or secondary must be in line with our infamous ‘constitutional rights’. Law making should be a balance of constitutional rights for legislation to be drafted. For example the Defamation Act derives from the balance of ones right to a good name, and freedom of speech. However, with the acceptance of power to a minority, nothing in society is balanced no matter what legislation is drawn. What results from this acceptance is elitism, and a system ran by a minority for the benefit of a minority. The courts, police and army are there to enforce the rule of this elite minority.

Who has the power?
A case of breach of constitutional rights was brought before the High courts by fast-food outlets in relation to the pay and conditions established by the Catering JLC. Rates of pay for workers covered by the Catering JLC means trainee chefs/cooks earn €7.12, and when fully trained they will eventually be an hourly pay of €9.50. Counter assistants, waiters, and bar staff, an average earn €9.30, when fully trained and allowed the “full rate”. Although shockingly low wages considering the multi-million business ran by the fast-food outlets, employers were deemed to be powerless. Mr Justice Kevin Feeney of the High Courts judged the delegation of power by the Labour Court amounted to an unconstitutional transfer of power. He granted declarations that relevant provision of the Industrial Relations Acts were unconstitutional, after findings they delegate “excessive” law-making powers concerning pay and conditions to JLC’s, without policies or principles to guide those powers. Also, fixing pay and conditions for catering workers was found to be an unlawful interference with the property rights of John Grace Fried Chicken and its operator, John Grace. Workers’ having minimum pay and conditions is considered by our judicial system to be a ‘transfer of power’. The unbalanced power an employer holds over a worker is deemed a constitutional right; and therefore legislation must be drafted in favour of an elite few. A right to earn a wage is null and void, as it’s considered an unlawful interference of property rights. Despite this, our constitution is held up as sacred; balancing the rights of every man, woman and child.

What is criminal?
This action in the high courts was initiated when (NERA) the National Employment Rights authority expressed its concerns to John Grace Fried Chicken that it was underpaying staff in breach of the 2008 order. John Grace Fried Chicken was breaking the law by not paying correct wages to staff; yet was allowed by the system to halt this prosecution, and take an unconstitutional challenge. Imagine a shoplifter been allowed to halt a criminal prosecution to take an unconstitutional challenge against the system. Not paying workers their entitlements is theft of wages, and must be seen as that. The victory for John Grace in the High Courts means the period he was in breach of legislation, even when it was then considered criminal, is canceled. Workers of John Grace Fried Chicken will now never be awarded of money stole from them by their employer. According to NERA up to 70% of employers are in breach of legislation. With this legislation now no longer holding any legality; all of the employers who have been robbing workers of their wages will never face criminal prosecution. Mr Justice Kevin Feeney when referring to the unconstitutional transfer of power was relating to the Labour Court having the ability to enforce criminal sanctions. Therefore the judge ruled the property rights of John Grace had been unlawfully breached, because the employment order required them to pay wage rates determined in an arbitrary and unfair manner. So because he owns the property been enforced to pay workers on ‘his’ property minimum wage settings, is arbitrary and unfair manner. A property right in our constitution is classic example of the elitism of our law. Now it’s extended so far as to remove criminal prosecution of employers.

What now for workers?
Although the hearing was brought forward by the fast-food outlets, it has serious consequences across all working sectors. With immediate effect the Catering JLC is derogated, and the power given to other employer bodies will be imminent. All outstanding criminal prosecutions against employers will be void. IBEC have already advised members that any new employees hired from the 7th of July “may be offered rates and conditions which are not based on any employment regulation order”. With the JLC system now considered unconstitutional the wishes of employers that the system is abolished is now likely to happen. Especially considering it is requested in the IMF memorandum. Employer claims that current employees will have the same rates of pay and conditions means nothing; as they don’t have to and won’t. Hard lobbying by them initiated all of this in the first place, and the system was just waiting for a flaw to cater for them. Brutons’ proposals outlined to reform the system will be considered favourable, as he is now claiming to protect workers. He is now laying fame that he will bring in legislation to protect workers. The courts finding in the main is said to relate to a legal technicality about the power of the Oireachtas. An argument about some technical flaws in the system does hold valid points in favour of workers. But regardless of these technicalities the system as a whole from the Oireachtas to the courts is arranged to cater for an elite minority. That is why Bruton has ruled out an appeal to the court ruling.

What can workers do?

In the short term the unions need to call strikes to put manners on the boss class. Knowing the nature of the bureaucrats who lead our unions it will take massive pressure from below to get them to move. It’s up to rank and file workers to start building that pressure. As many workers as possible should join the march against the IMF on Saturday July 16th and make that day a starting point for resistance to the boss’s greed.
In the long term there is simply only one solution: ‘revolution’. Ultimately talk of reforming and changing some of the laws are meaningless. We are for winning better conditions whenever we can but as a whole the state the courts and the police are set up to protect the ruling class. Abolishing the whole system and removing the power from an elite minority is the only way. Workers need to move as they have in Egypt and are doing so in Greece.