The Court originally played a pivotal role in the adjudication of major industrial disputes in the early to mid-20th century, but today it is rarely involved in disputes or determining outcomes in protracted industrial action. Instead, the modern day Industrial Court is only involved in adjudicating matters related to collective negotiations between trade unions and employers, where agreement cannot be reached. This includes determining whether a trade union can gain statutory recognition in a workplace, and this is the Court’s most common type of case. 

Many HR professionals and employment lawyers may not fully understand what the term ‘recognition’ of a trade union means, because they may have only ever worked with private sector employers which have non-unionised workforces. In a nutshell, ‘recognition’ of a trade union is a legally binding status which gives power to the Union to negotiate on behalf of a group of workers on pay, hours and holiday by way of the process known as ‘collective bargaining’.

At present, only employers which employ 21 workers or more are amenable to an application for recognition by a trade union.  If a trade union is recognised by an employer, either voluntarily or by order of the Industrial Court, then all pay negotiations must take place between the recognised trade union and the employer. Some Unions may have some members in workplaces where they are not in fact recognised for the purpose of collective bargaining on pay, and indeed may never seek recognition, but when a Union has a growing membership base in a workplace, it will often seek recognition on the basis that it is likely that the workers would support the trade union in bargaining with their employer in respect of pay and conditions on their behalf. It can sometimes be a complex and contested issue. I will tell you more about the process of seeking recognition in my next article which will feature some of the most defining and landmark cases as well as recent case law developments in this area.

Other matters the modern Industrial Court can deal with includes disputes between unions and employers on the disclosure of information during the pay bargaining process as well as oversight of information and consultation of employees under The Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005, which gives rights to employees in larger companies to be informed and consulted on a regular basis about certain issues in the business. The Court also retains a statutory function of providing formal arbitration under Article 84 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which provides that where a trade/industrial dispute exists, the parties to that dispute may request the Labour Relations Agency (LRA) to refer all or any of the matters in dispute to the Court for settlement by way of arbitration, but such requests are rare.

History of the Industrial Court

The Industrial Courts Act 1919 established the first permanent tribunal in the United Kingdom for the voluntary arbitration of trade disputes. It aimed to replace the "spirit of controversy" with a "spirit of arbitration" following the industrial unrest of the post-WWI era. Much has changed in 107 years, but today the Court upholds its same core function as in 1919 – to be a permanent body of independent members, employer representatives, and worker representatives with the purpose of adjudicating or resolving collective employment disputes. 

The first President of the Industrial Courts of Britian and Ireland was a High Court Judge, Sir William Mackenzie KC who served from 1919 until 1926. He was succeeded by Sir Harold Mairs who retired from the role in 1945. After this, the role was held by Sir John Forrester and then Sir John Donaldson KC until 1974, when the Industrial Court of Great Britian was reconstituted and renamed as the short lived National Industrial Relations Court.

Interestingly, the first Industrial Court was a trail blazer in terms of achieving equal rights for women and was notable for the early and significant strides taken in what was considered ground breaking legislation in 1919, and which paved the way for equality for women in the judiciary. Section 1 of the Act provided that the Court should consist of independent persons, persons representing employers, persons representing workmen, and ‘in addition one or more women’.

Thus, at a time when women were unable to formally practise law, before they were able to sit as magistrates let alone be paid judges in the civil and criminal courts, the Industrial Courts Act contained a statutory quota recognising women’s capacity as ‘persons of experience, of known impartiality; judicially-minded and capable of estimating evidence and reaching a reasonable decision according to the revealed facts of the case’. (per John Clynes MP advocating in Parliament for the inclusion of women on the Industrial Court bench).

This was really quite something in 1919, a time when only women over 30 had recently won the right to vote. It was a pioneering approach in terms of its significance for the advancement of women in both law and commerce. This achievement for women’s equality was no doubt assisted by the active role of women in trade unions, dating back to the foundation of the Women’s Trade Union League in 1874.

The Industrial Court Today 

The Industrial Court of Northern Ireland is the only body on these islands which continues to operate under the original 1919 title. The Industrial Court in Great Britain was renamed the Industrial Arbitration Board in 1974, when the new Labour Government abolished the National Industrial Relations Court. But this Board was soon replaced by the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) in 1976, which remains its name today.

After 1920, the partition of Ireland meant that the legal system in what is now the Republic of Ireland significantly diverged. The modern day Labour Court in the Republic of Ireland operates over a fully integrated employment rights adjudication model which merges both collective employment disputes (similar to the remit of the Industrial Court) and individual employment rights cases (similar to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunals). The collective employment relations framework of Ireland is strictly a voluntary system and, unlike the UK system, there is no ability for a trade union to enforce its right to recognition by an employer in any circumstances. This is the subject of increasing debate in that jurisdiction.

 In terms of its current role and remit, since 1999 and the significant overhaul of Employment Law by Tony Blair’s Labour Government, the Industrial Court in Northen Ireland has closely mirrored the legislative remit of its counterpart in Great Britain, the Central Arbitration Committee (CAC). Before I was appointed to the role of Chairman of the Industrial Court of Northern Ireland, I served 5 years as Deputy Chairman of the CAC in London. I can therefore personally attest to the virtually identical systems of the CAC in London and the Industrial Court in Belfast.

Employment Law & policy has been devolved in Northern Ireland since 1998. It is not devolved in Scotland or Wales. Divergence in Northen Ireland in terms of the law on workers’ rights has been considerable. However, the remit of the Industrial Court and the CAC in Great Britain did not in fact diverge at all between 1999 and 2025. The recent introduction of the Employment Rights Act 2025 in Great Britian means that for the first time in over 25 years, the law on trade union recognition in Northern Ireland has diverged to that of Great Britain. New rights for trade union access to workplaces in Great Britain have also been introduced under the 2025 Act which are soon to be overseen and adjudicated by the CAC. These access rights do not apply to Northern Ireland and it remains to be seen if Northen Ireland will align with these changes which now apply in the rest of the UK. The current ‘Good Jobs’ Bill proposes to introduce new rights of trade union access, but it is currently unclear if this proposed legislation for Northern Ireland will be enacted before the end of the current Assembly mandate.

Differences between Industrial Court and the Industrial Tribunals 

The Industrial Court and the Industrial & Fair Employment Tribunals have always been legally separate entities but they were more closely aligned historically. At one time the role of Chairman of both the Industrial Court and the Industrial Tribunals was a joint role and both forums were housed in the same premises. 

The Industrial Court and the Industrial Tribunals operate a similar tripartite panel system with an equal balance of worker and employer perspective provided by lay members, but the similarities end there.

The Tribunals were founded in 1964 with a vision for quick and easy access to workplace training issues for individuals. Their remit quickly expanded as employment rights developed in the subsequent decades. The Industrial Tribunals have become increasingly complex and legalistic forums, much more like traditional civil courts, with a huge volume of cases, representation by lawyers is common place and the role of Chairman has been converted to ‘Employment Judge’.

On the other hand, the Industrial Court operates a more flexible forum for resolution of collective disputes between employers and trade unions and the parties are not often represented by legal teams. Most often, HR professionals and trade union representatives will appear before the Court’s Panel without legal representation. The flexibility of process at the Industrial Court enables the Chair of the Industrial Court to facilitate and mediate informal resolution of matters in dispute and will often refer cases back to the Labour Relations Agency at any stage during the proceedings if it is likely that the parties may be able to resolve the matter with some LRA assistance and without the need for adjudication.

Ironically, despite what their respective names might suggest, over time, the Industrial Tribunals have evolved into what looks more like a formal Court model and it is the Industrial Court which operates like a flexible Tribunal.