Quilter v Department of Education

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 24 August 1999
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1999] 8 JIEC 2401
• Date: 24 August 1999
• Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal (Ireland)

Employment Appeals Tribunal

Quilter v Department of Education

Representation:

Claimant(s): In Person

Respondent(s): Mr. John Rigney, Department of Education, Athlone, Co. Westmeath.

Abstract:

Dismissal - Pay withheld by the respondent - Whether such action amounted to dismissal - Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1073-1991 - Unfair Dismissal Acts 1977 - 1993

EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.

UD327/98

MN774/98

CLAIM(S) OF:

Nora Ann Quilter, Ballyduff Tralee, Co. Kerry.

against

Department of Education, Athlone, Co. Westmeath.

under

UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 To 1993

MINIMUM NOTICE AND TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT ACTS, 1973 TO 1991

I certify that the Tribunal

(Division of Tribunal)

Chairman: M.D. Mac Carthy S C

Members: Mr.E.Sheehy

Ms. B. Fell

heard this claim at Limerick on 9th July 1998

Claimant employed by the respondent through the Board of Management of the school where she worked. A preliminary issue arose as to who was the correct respondent and whether the claimant was covered by the Unfair Dismissals legislation. The claimant contended that she was effectively dismissed by the Department of Education through their action of withholding pay on the basis that she was unsuitable to teach on medical grounds. The respondent contended that it has the right to withhold pay if, on the advice of its chief medical officer, a teacher is deemed unsuitable to teach on medical grounds. Further the relationship between the respondent and a national school does not constitute that of employer and employee. They claimed that the Board of Management was the de facto employer.

The Tribunal found itself in a difficult situation in presiding over this case. It dismissed the claimant's case on the basis that, if the named respondent is correct, the claimant is not covered by the Acts pursuant to Section 2 (1) (h) of the 1977 Act. Alternatively, if the named respondent is incorrect, then the application is not properly before the Tribunal.

The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-

1 At the onset, there was a preliminary issue on the application to the Tribunal, as to whether or not the claim was taken against the correct employer and, as a consequence, whether or not the claimant was in fact covered by the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 1993.

Claimant's Case:

2 It is the claimant's case that she was employed by the Department of Education through the Board of Management of the school where she...