Labour Court erred in failing to hear evidence in prison officer’s claim of unlawful discrimination

Employment law – appeal on a point of law - prison officer twice assaulted in the course of his employment – injuries to his back requiring surgeries – certified that he would not be fit to carry out any restraint and control duties in the medium or long term – employer informed him that could not offer him a position with restricted duties - opportunity to resign and apply for employment as a Prison Administration Staff Officer or ill-health retirement – brought a claim that his employer had discriminated against him on ground of disability and in particular had failed to make any reasonable accommodation for him as required – argued that pursuant to the relevant legislation they did not have to make reasonable accommodation – Labour Court found against the prison officer – statutory exemption from a complaint of discrimination in circumstances where the complainant was not capable of carrying out the full range of duties that are required of prison officers – background facts – argued that he was entitled to have reasonable accommodation under the provisions of the Act by being given duties as a prison officer, which did not have prisoner contact – examples of other prison officers who had been accommodated – statutory exemption – hearing in the Labour Court – implementation of EU law - statutory interpretation - paradigm shift in the way that disability is to be viewed in European and Irish law - general duty of providing reasonable accommodation – Prison Service not entitled to certify themselves that the prison officer was incapable of work - deprive the prison officer of an effective remedy in seeking to enforce his rights - single characteristic function - control and restraint is an important requirement generally within the Prison Service; given the size of the service and the range of duties performed by prison officers, there may be duties which could be undertaken - Labour Court was in error due to its failure to hear evidence and make findings of fact in this case - fundamental requirement of justice that both parties to the dispute are given an opportunity to assert their version of the facts and to test the propositions put forward by the opposing party – Labour Court determined the matter on the assumption that the proposition put forward on behalf of the Prison Service, to the effect that the capability of all prison officers to carry out control and restraint duties was a fundamental requirement of the job, was correct - not afforded the opportunity to call evidence and test the evidence put forward on behalf of the Prison Service – unsatisfactory and unfair – exemption does not go as far as the Prison Service argued - requirements of EU law mandate that he be given the reasonable accommodation which is not unduly burdensome and thereby be permitted to continue in employment - correct interpretation of the subsection does not relieve the employer of the obligation to attempt to make reasonable accommodation for the person if it is not unduly burdensome for them to do so and if having done so, the operational capacity of the service is not adversely affected – proceedings remitted to the Labour Court –