Limerick Health Authority v Ryan

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: KENNY, J.:
• Judgment Date: 18 July 1969
• Neutral Citation: 1965 WJSC-HC 4761
• Date: 18 July 1969
• Docket Number: [1969. No. 2 Sp.],No. 2sp/1969
• Court: High Court

1965 WJSC-HC 4761

THE HIGH COURT

No. 2sp/1969

Limerick Health Authority v. Ryan

IN THE MATTER OF THE REDUNDANCY

PAYMENTS ACT 1967

LIMERICK HEALTH AUTHORITY

Plaintiffs

and

ANNA RYAN

Defendant

1 Judgment delivered 18th July 1969.KENNY, J.:

KENNY, J.:

2 Section 16 of the Health Act 1953imposed on the Limerick Health Authority ("the authority") an obligation to provide a midwifery service for those eligible for it in their district and so, in April 1959, they employed Mrs. Ryan as a temporary midwife for the Grean dispensary. She was originally employed for six months but her contract was renewed for this period on a number of occasions until the 14th of April 1968 when it ceased and she has not been employed by the authority in any capacity since then. When she was first employed her salary was £197: in April 1968 it was £346. This was payable without regard to the number of cases which she attended though if she had to attend more than 25 in a year, she was entitled to extra payment for each case in excess of that number. Most women now go to hospitals to have children and so Mrs. Ryan never attended 25 cases in any year: the number of deliveries of children at home which she attended was usually about 4 or 5 each year. She was bound to live in the district for which she was appointed and to keep herself available to perform her duties at all times. Subject to this, she was free to engage in private practice and could take up other employment. In addition to her work in connection with confinements at home, she gave advice on midwifery and maternity matters and often went with expectant mothers when they were worried that the child might be born before they reached the hospital. Her employment was insurable under the Social Welfare Act. Counsel for the authority has agreed that she was obliged to be available at all times during the day and night to do her work when it became necessary and that she could not leave the dispensary district without their consent. Her counsel has agreed that the number of hours for which she was normally expected to do work for the authority was at all times less than 21 in a week.

3 The policy of the Department of Health is that the services which were formerly performed by district midwives should be carried out by permanent public health nurses who are qualified to give other medical care and advice. Mrs. Ryan was replaced in April 1968 by a permanent fulltime public health nurse who carried out the midwifery duties formerly done by Mrs. Ryan and does other medical work.

4 Mrs. Ryan claimed that she was entitled to a redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payments Act 1967and the authority disputed their liability for this because, they said, the Act did not apply to her as she was "normally expected to work ..................; for less than 21 hours in a week" for them and as she had not been dismissed by reason of redundancy. She appealed to the Tribunal established by the Act who, having heard argument, rejected both these contentions and have stated their conclusions in an admirably lucid and careful decision. The authority have now appealed to this Court on these two matters which are questions of law.

5 Section 4 (2) of the Act reads: "This Act shall not apply to a person who is normally expected to work for the same employer for less than 21 hours in a week". The authority did not and could not fix any hours during which Mrs. Ryan was to do her work: children do not arrive into our world at appointed times. She was bound, however, to be available to do her work at all times and the hours during which she could be summoned must be included when calculating the time during which she was normally expected to work. Sub-section (2) does not apply when the employer does not or cannot specify the hours during which an employee is to do the work and when its nature requires that the person employed has to be available to do it at all times. I think that the decision of...