THERE have been considerable changes in the Labour Court's role since Ms Evelyn Owens became a member in 1984. The most obvious has been the introduction of national agreements starting with the Programme for National Recovery in 1987.
"Before that the court was actually setting the rates of pay for various sectors. We would tell a firm it should pay such and such and that became the norm," she says.
The court's recommendations still have a major impact on industrial relations. So central is its role that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Labour Relations Commission have both proposed that it receive more resources.
There have also been suggestions that an enlarged court could be given a wider role in arbitrating for groups of public sector workers like nurses and local government officials.
But Ms Owens says that changes in industrial relations machinery is a matter for the Government and social partners. She has no complaints about existing resources, but warns that the situation could change.
"For example, if there is no new national agreement, or if the new equality and working conditions Bills become law. There also seem to be more EU directives coming through the Social Charter and we may well have to reassess the resources needed."
She points out that the court had four divisions until 1993. It was reduced to three by the Department of Enterprise and Employment, because of a fall off in cases following the advent of national agreements.
"While this may be the case, the nature and complexities of cases coming to the court has changed. The court is now more frequently required to deal with issues relating to restructuring in the workplace and financial difficulties of companies.
Earlier this year, the Labour Relations Commission published a strategic policy document, Improving Industrial Relations, which proposed that Labour Court arbitration be made binding. "There was an inference that the court had been consulted. We hadn't," says Ms Owens.
"We have submitted our views on the issue to the commission and to the Department of Enterprise and Employment. We would not be happy with it at all. The commission's document reads as if you can't come to the court unless prepared to be bound by its findings.
"But it was only a discussion paper and to that extent - that it stimulates more interest and debate in the area - well done."
Ms Owens points out that there is provision already for binding arbitration by the court, if parties to a dispute agree.
Since the Labour Relations Commission was set up under the 1990 Industrial Relations Act, there have been reports of tension between the two agencies, especially as the conciliation services were taken out of the court's remit and given to the LRC.
There had been a tendency in recent years for union and employer bodies to treat conciliation as simply a preliminary to gaining access to the court.
"Our relations with the conciliation staff didn't change because the people became part of the commission," she says. "We were reading about had relations in the media but they didn't exist in here. We have regular meetings with the chief executive of the LRC, Mr Kieran Mulvey, and the director of conciliation, Mr Ray McGee."
"We did have difficulties, and do, from time to time on strategic policy," she says, "and that's fair enough."
She accepts that something of a revolving door syndrome has developed, where disputes go to the LRC, are referred on to the court and then resurface in the LRC again. Ms Owens says that both the court and the commission are concerned about this trend.
Access to the Labour Court is open to individual workers as well as trade unions - who have a grievance. In recent years, however, the court has also dealt with increasing numbers of equality cases, where plaintiff and defendant tend to have legal representation.
While one senses that Ms Owens regrets the intrusion of the lawyers, she is adamant that the court wants to retain its involvement in the equality area.
The court has been to the fore in combating sexual harassment. It was on the basis of a court recommendation in 1985 that freedom from sexual harassment was established as a basic condition of employment.
"That was a landmark decision," Ms Owens says. "Employers have become much more positive and aware now of the problem." She admits that she does not relish harassment cases. "To tell the truth, some of the cases are so distressful I hate to see people having to go through the ordeal of giving evidence. We have had to have adjournments to give people a chance to recover and continue with their evidence."
Last year, for the first time, the court used its power to refer an equality case to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. The issue is whether civil servants on job share are entitled to their full increments for the period of job share, or only half. The vast majority of workers affected are women and the outcome could have huge implications within the Civil Service.
Meanwhile, much of the pioneering work done by the court in areas like equality and sexual harassment is now being incorporated into new legislation being prepared by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mr Taylor.
Ms Owens believes the great asset of the court is that "it's free and it's accessible. People who visit from other countries can't believe this, that someone can come in, with or without their union, and be heard".
And, while the Labour Court system of arbitration is voluntary, refusal to accept a recommendation usually leaves the employer or union concerned indicted in the eyes of the public. That can prove an increasingly important factor in industrial conflicts, as recent high profile disputes such as Dunnes Stores have proven.