Coyle v The Labour Court

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Meenan
• Judgment Date: 11 February 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IEHC 111
• Docket Number: [2018 No. 291 MCA]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 11 February 2020

IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEES (FIXED-TERM WORK) ACT, 2003 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO SECTION 46 OF THE WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT, 2015

BETWEEN

VALERIE COYLE

APPELLANT

AND

THE LABOUR COURT

RESPONDENT

AND

BLACKROCK COLLEGE

NOTICE PARTY

[2020] IEHC 111

Meenan J.

[2018 No. 291 MCA]

THE HIGH COURT

Bankruptcy summons – Extension of time – Bankruptcy Act 1988 s. 11(1)(c) – Appellant seeking redress pursuant to the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 – Whether the appellant was a “fixed-term employee” for the purposes of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003

Facts: The appellant, Ms Coyle, had been employed as the art teacher at the notice party, Blackrock College, since 1984. Over the 34 years, she was employed on a series of fixed-term contracts, which were renewed at the start of the academic year and continued for the duration of that year for a period of some nine months. For the remaining three months, June, July and August, she had to sign on for social welfare payments. At the end of August, 2016, following discussions with the school principal of the college, she consulted her solicitor in relation to her employment status. She maintained that, arising from her fixed-term employment status, she was entitled to redress pursuant to the terms of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. The appellant maintained that she was entitled to a contract of indefinite duration. The appellant’s claim, in the first instance, was heard by an Adjudication Officer of the Workplace Relation Commission (WRC). The Adjudication Officer held that the appellant was a “fixed-term employee”, for the purposes of the 2003 Act. It was further found that the appellant had been treated in a less favourable manner than other teachers employed by the college. The Adjudication Officer directed that the college place the appellant on an annual salary covering the twelve months of the year, to be paid monthly. The appellant was also awarded compensation of €5,000 as the college was found to be in breach of s. 8 of the 2003 Act in that it had failed to inform the appellant in writing of objective reasons governing the renewal of her fixed-term contract and the reasons why she was not being offered a contract of indefinite duration. The college appealed the decision of the Adjudication Officer to the respondent, The Labour Court. In its decision of 5 June 2018, the respondent made a finding that at all times the appellant was a permanent employee of the college, did not come within the definition of a “fixed-term employee” and so was not entitled to rely on the provisions of the 2003 Act. The appellant appealed to the High Court against the determination of the respondent. This appeal was provided for in s. 46 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

Held by Meenan J that the finding of primary fact, that the appellant was a permanent employee of the college, was one which no reasonable decision-making body could make. He held that the conflict on the affidavits on a fundamental point, as to whether or not the appellant was denied an opportunity to give evidence, could only be resolved by either a transcript of the hearing before the respondent, which was not available, or by cross-examination of the deponents; if the appellant was refused an opportunity to give evidence, this would amount to a departure from fair procedures and legally undermine the determination of the respondent.

Meenan J held that he would allow the appeal and remit the matter back to the respondent for rehearing.

Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Meenan delivered on the 11th day of February, 2020

Background

1 The appellant has been employed as the art teacher at the notice party (the college) since 1984. For much of that period she was the only art teacher working in the college and, thus, had the responsibility of preparing students for the Junior Certificate and Leaving Certificate examinations.

2 These proceedings concern the legal status of the appellant's employment. Over the 34 years, the appellant was employed on a series of fixed-term contracts, which were renewed at the start of the academic year and continued for the duration of that year for a period of some nine months. For the remaining three months, June, July and August, the appellant had to sign on for social welfare payments.

3 At the end of August, 2016, following discussions with the school principal of the college, the appellant consulted her Solicitor in relation to her employment status. The appellant maintained that, arising from her fixed-term employment status, she was entitled to redress pursuant to the terms of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act, 2003 (the Act of 2003). The appellant maintained that she was entitled to a contract of indefinite duration.

4 The appellant's claim was resisted by the college, who maintained that she was a permanent employee notwithstanding the fact that she was not paid during the period of the school summer holidays. The position of the college was that the appellant was on a period of “lay off” during these months. It was common case between the parties that the appellant had to sign on for Job Seeker's Benefit for each summer for the months of June, July and August.

5 If the appellant is successful in establishing that she is entitled to a contract of indefinite duration, under the Act of 2003, this would result in significant benefits for her in the form of salary and working conditions.

6 The appellant's claim, in the first instance, was heard by an Adjudication Officer of the Workplace Relation Commission (WRC). The Adjudication Officer held that the appellant was a “fixed-term employee”, for the purposes of the Act of 2003. It was further found that the appellant had been treated in a less favourable manner than other teachers employed by the college. The Adjudication Officer directed that the college place the appellant on an annual salary covering the twelve months of the year, to be paid monthly. The appellant was also awarded compensation of €5,000 as the college was found to be in breach of s. 8 of the Act of 2003 in that it had failed to inform the appellant in writing of objective reasons governing the renewal of her fixed-term contract and the reasons why she was not being offered a contract of indefinite duration.

7 The college appealed the decision of the Adjudication Officer to the respondent. The respondent determined that the appeal should be conducted by way of preliminary hearing as to whether the appellant was or was not a “fixed-term employee” for the purposes of the Act of 2003. A “‘fixed-term employee’ means a person having a contract of employment entered into directly with an employer where the end of the contract of employment concerned is determined by an objective condition such as arriving at a specific date …”.

8 In its decision of 5 June 2018, the respondent made a finding that at all times the appellant was a permanent employee of the college, did not come within the...