Case against pay laws opens

A challenge by fast food operators to the constitutionality of laws setting mandatory minimum rates of pay and conditions for more than 190,000 workers has opened before the High Court.

The case relates to catering workers but has implications for all workers whose minimum pay and conditions are set under Employment Regulation Orders (ERO) proposed by Joint Labour Committees (JLC) for approval by the Labour Court.

The operators complain the system allows for the setting of wage rates higher than the national minimum wage of €7.60 per hour, Sunday pay rates higher than those set under the Organisation of Working Time Act and more favourable working conditions may.

It is claimed such measures have been put in place in the absence of any policy guidelines from the Oireachtas in breach of the property rights and rights to fair procedures of the fast food operators.

A number of prosecutions of fast food operators over alleged failure to implement the terms of a May 2008 Employment Regulation Orders for catering workers have been stayed pending the outcome of the case.

The action is by John Grace Fried Chicken Ltd, Cook Street, Cork; its operator John Grace; and the Quick Service Food Alliance (QSFA) Ltd, also of Cook Street, Cork, which represents the interests of owners of fast food restauarants including Subway, Abrakebabra, Supermac's and Burger King.

The proceedings - brought against the Catering JLC, the Labour Court and the State - opened today before Mr Justice Kevin Feeney and will resume next Tuesday.

Outlining the case, Brian Murray SC, for the plaintiffs, argued the system under which minimum rates of pay and conditions are set by JLCs subject to the approval of the Labour Court is unconstitutional as the relevant legislation - the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 and 1990 - failed to set out guiding policy and principles for the setting of such rates.

This system was a "reincarnation of an Edwardian scheme" applying in an entirely different time and the problem was that a JLC essentially operated on a "blank canvas" without any parliamentary supervision, counsel argued.