The High Court dismissed a judicial review application by Tonya Martin over her dismissal from a Tús community work placement and a resulting nine-week disqualification from Jobseeker’s Allowance. The court held that the dismissal was a decision of the implementing partnership, not the Minister for Social Protection, and that the employment dispute was not amenable to judicial review.
Martin had been selected for the Tús programme after receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance. She worked for Tolka Area Partnership, later known as Dublin North West Area Partnership, under a contract dated 31 August 2015. Her placement involved work at a garden allotment assisting elderly people.
A disagreement with a co-worker occurred on 25 February 2016. The judgment records an allegation that Martin threw an item towards the co-worker. Martin accepted that the incident occurred but said she felt intimidated. She was suspended on full pay pending an investigation.
At a disciplinary hearing on 29 February, Martin was asked to submit a written account. The matter was adjourned to 7 March. Martin said she arrived about five minutes late, told a representative she was there, and was refused entry. The hearing proceeded without her. A letter dated 8 March informed her she had been dismissed for alleged violent or threatening behaviour and malicious mischief. She said the letter arrived too late for her to use the three-working-day internal appeal period.
The Department separately disqualified her from Jobseeker’s Allowance for nine weeks under section 147(4)(a) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, on the ground that she had lost her job through misconduct. Her appeal against that decision was accepted despite being lodged outside the stated 21-day period, but was rejected. The nine-week disqualification had expired by the time the High Court considered the case.
Martin argued that the Department was responsible for ensuring fair procedures because it established and funded Tús and its programme rules provided for reasonable notice and a right of review. The Minister argued that the partnership controlled employment and disciplinary matters and was not a party to the proceedings.
Justice Binchy said Martin had made out a case that the dismissal process was contrary to fair procedures, but stressed that he made no finding on whether the process was unfair. The partnership was not before the court, so it had no opportunity to respond to her allegations. The judge held that the partnership’s decision could not be treated as the Minister’s decision, and that the employment dispute was between Martin and the partnership. He agreed that the placement did not have the public-domain character needed for judicial review and dismissed the proceedings. The court did not grant the relief Martin sought against the Minister.