The High Court found that the Labour Court had not erred in law in treating a State Laboratory technician as entitled to the same pension arrangements and access to a career break as comparable established civil servants. It also upheld the finding that she was wrongly denied the chance to compete for a permanent chemist post and was entitled to €10,000 compensation for that breach.
In a judgment delivered on 22 March 2007, Ms Justice Laffoy ruled on the Minister for Finance’s appeal against a Labour Court determination under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. The appeal was on points of law. The court’s order did not extend to the employee’s tenure or the wider question of objective justification.
The employee began work as a laboratory technician in March 2000 on a one-year fixed-term contract, helping analyse samples from drivers suspected of drug use. Her contract was renewed annually until March 2004. The Minister accepted before the Labour Court that she became entitled to a contract of indefinite duration from 22 March 2004, though the High Court said the legal basis and terms of her employment after that date had not been properly analysed.
The Labour Court had found that established civil servants doing the same or interchangeable work were appropriate comparators. The High Court found no error of law in that conclusion for the purpose of identifying minimum conditions under the Act. It upheld the findings on pension arrangements and career-break access. It did not decide the career-break issue’s practical application, noting there was no evidence that the employee had sought and been refused a break.
The employee was excluded from a competition for a permanent chemist position after being told that only established officers could apply. The High Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that this amounted to less favourable treatment in breach of the Act’s vacancy provisions. It also found no basis to overturn the €10,000 award, concluding that the Labour Court had material on which to assess the employee’s lost opportunity.
The court did not uphold the Labour Court’s conclusion that the employee had security of tenure comparable to an established civil servant. It held that the law on fixed-term employees’ conditions of employment did not make contract duration a condition to be matched with a comparator. The court said it would not express a view on the broader objective-justification question.
The High Court adjourned the case to allow the parties to consider whether it should refer the meaning of “contract of indefinite duration” to the European Court of Justice. The judgment records that the High Court was the final court on the appeal under the Act.