O'Callaghan & O'Cinneide v Minister for Education
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | KINGSMILL MOORE J. |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 1955 |
| Neutral Citation | 1930 WJSC-SC 402 |
| Date | 31 March 1955 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
1930 WJSC-SC 402
THE SUPREME COURT
In these two actions for the Plaintiffs, Mr. Daniel O'Callaghan and Mr. Sean L. O'Cinneide, both qualified and recognised National Teachers, sue the Minister for Education claiming a number of declarations. Broadly speaking, these declarations are framed to establish two contentions. First, that the Rules and Regulations governing the position, duties, rights and emoluments of National Teachers, which were in operation when a National Teacher entered the National Education service, form a continuing contract of employment which persists so long as the teacher remains in the service, and that any representations contained in such rules and regulations are binding on the Minister for Education. Secondly that the provisions in the Rules, first introduced in 1946, whereby greater remuneration is paid to married than to unmarried teachers, are unauthorised and void in so far as concerns teachers who entered the service before October 31st, 1946. Again speaking broadly, we are of opinion that the first of these contentions is well founded and the second is not.
The Plaintiff, Mr. O'Callaghan, entered the educational service on the 21st January, 1914. The somewhat unusual framework of the National Education service was explained by Kenny J. in NEWELL v. STARKIE [1917] 2 I.R. 77, 78, and by MURNAGHAN J. in LEYDON v. ATTORNEY GENERAL [1926] I.R.334 at 354, 355, and McENANEY v. MINISTER FOR EDUCATION [1941] I.R.430 at 439, 440. It is sufficient to say that the general control of National education, including the regulation of the curriculum, the prescribing of the qualifications of the teaching staff, the payment of teachers from State funds, and their promotion in the service, were controlled by a Board known as the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, and that these Commissioners issued at intervals a code of Rules and Regulations governing all such matters. On the other hand the assignment or selection for a particular school of any particular teacher did not, except in the case of Model Schools, lie in their hands. Each school had a manager, usually the local Parish Priest or Protestant Clergyman, who might select his own teachers, subject however to the approval of the Commissioners. The manager was required to enter into an agreement with the teacher in any one of four prescribed forms. All the forms provided that "the duties of the teacher shall be such as are in accordance with the rules of the Commissioners" and that "the salary and emoluments of the teacher are as follows - "The variation between the forms was merely a variation in the terms on which a teacher could give notice or be dismissed. The details of the salary and emoluments were left blank in the forms, presumably because in certain schools the emoluments included a teacher's residence, and also because there was power given by Rule 106 of the rules prevailing in 1914 to supplement the teacher's income from local payments, (provided from subscriptions, donations and endowments) or by school fees from pupils. But, as stated in Rule 106(a), the incomes of teachers consisted "Mainly of grants from the Commissioners" and all the forms of contract contain, in their provisions for notice or dismissal, a reference to the "grade" salary which shows that it was understood that the teacher should receive at least the emoluments provided from State funds. In later years all payments came from these funds. All the agreements in evidence for both the Plaintiffs, though differing slightly in verbiage, are filled up so as to provide that the salary and emoluments are to be those prescribed or granted by the State educational authority - the Commissioners or the Minister for Education as the case might be.
When a Manager changed, or when a teacher went from one school to another, or obtained a higher post, fresh agreements had to be entered into between teacher and manager. (Rules of 1913, Rules 49 & 52. Rules of 1932 Rules 15 & 16.)
It was held by the majority of the Supreme Court in McENANEY v. MINISTER FOR EDUCATION [1941] I.R.430 that the Commissioners, by the making and publication of rules, made representations to both manager and teacher as to the way they would apply the funds entrusted to them by Parliament, and that, in so far as Parliament left to them a free discretion as to the application of such funds, they were legally bound by the representations they had made (at 440) that the particular representations made to a teacher were those made by the rules in force when he was appointed (at 444); and that when agreements were renewed owing to a change of managers, the effect was not to import any change in the rules then in force which was detrimental to the teacher and at variance with the representations made in the rules current when he was appointed. That case did not expressly deal with the effect of new agreements entered into when a teacher changed his school, or his post in a school, and it is here contended, and was held by Dixon J. that, in these circumstances, the new agreement must be read by itself, without reference to any earlier agreement, and was effectual to impose on the teacher any provisions of the rules in force when the latter agreement was signed, even if the provisions of the later rules ran contrary to the representations in the earlier rules and were to the detriment of the teacher. We are unable to accept this view. It is true that the profession of teacher does not necessarily provide for continuous employment. A teacher may cease to teach for a number of years and then be re-appointed. Yet in essence, and in practice, it is a continuous employment. Teachers go into service with the intention of making it a profession lifelong or until age or ill health compel retirement and, in the case of male teachers at least, it nearly always is a profession which lasts till death or retirement. It is pensionable. If the rules in force when a teacher enters the service are to be a representation to him as to the conditions of the service, he should be able to rely on the continuance of such conditions, subject to such provisions for change as are contained in the rules themselves. A teacher presumably looks forward to promotion and to a change from a smaller to a bigger school or to a school in a more favoured locality but, if such a change is to involve a worsening of his condition owing to the compulsory acceptance of new rules formed since his entry into the service and detrimental to his interest, there would be no inducement to him to rise. Moreover, though the formal contract is with the manager the contract, as was pointed out in FOX v. HIGGINS 46 I.L.T.R.232, is in essence tripartite. See also MAUNSELL v. MINISTER OF EDUCATION [1940] I.R. 213 at 222. The representations are made by the educational authority - the Commissioners, and now the Minister - and we are unable to see why a contract with a new manager, the object of which seems to be only to regulate the terms of notice and dismissal, should invalidate representations by the educational authority on which it is to be presumed that the teacher relied when he entered the service.
We conclude therefore that nothing in the agreements entered into...
To continue reading
Request your trial