The High Court has set aside a Labour Court determination in a fixed-term employment dispute involving a teacher at St. Joseph’s School for Deaf Boys and sent the case back for a fresh consideration.
Mr Justice Noonan ruled that the Labour Court had erred in its interpretation of section 8(4) of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. The appeal was brought by the school on a point of law under section 15(6) of the Act.
The dispute concerned the teacher’s employment over several school years. He worked for the school from 2006, initially for about 120 days, and then on successive temporary contracts. The school said that his contracts for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 school years were to cover the absence of a teacher on secondment. The teacher’s position was that he had not been told that he was replacing that teacher. He said the school’s later explanation was the first indication he had received that he had not succeeded in an interview for an advertised temporary post in 2010.
The Rights Commissioner rejected his complaint, finding objective grounds justified the fixed-term contracts. The Labour Court heard the matter afresh and reached a different conclusion. It found the school had breached the Act’s written-information requirements and awarded the teacher €5,000 for that breach. It also concluded that the 2010 renewal lacked objective grounds and that his employment had become a contract of indefinite duration from 1 September 2010.
The High Court rejected the school’s argument that an earlier High Court decision, HSE v Umar, had overruled the Labour Court’s approach to section 8 in Dr Mohammed Khan v HSE North Eastern Region. However, it held that the Labour Court had wrongly treated the absence of a written statement as creating a presumption that the employer’s subsequently stated grounds were not the operative grounds for renewal.
Justice Noonan said section 8(4) permits an inference to be drawn where an employer fails to provide a written statement, but the decision-maker must assess the evidence and circumstances as a whole. A failure to provide the statement does not, by itself, establish that no objective justification existed.
The court did not decide whether the school’s stated reason was the true justification for the renewals. It said the Labour Court might reach the same conclusion after properly considering the evidence, but the High Court could not determine what view it would have taken under the correct legal approach. It therefore set aside the Labour Court determination and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The court did not itself decide the underlying employment claim.