The High Court has rejected a Mount Anville School secretary’s appeal against a decision allowing a pay reduction under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act 2009 (FEMPI (No. 2)). The court affirmed the Employment Appeals Tribunal’s decision, holding that the school fell within the Act’s definition of a public service body and that the secretary was covered by the statutory reduction for the purposes of that Act.
The secretary, Damhnait Nic Bhrádaig, brought a statutory appeal on a point of law under the Payment of Wages Act 1991. She argued that she had not consented to the reduction and was not a public servant under FEMPI (No. 2). Her salary was paid wholly by the fee-paying school, and she had no employment-related public service pension.
A Rights Commissioner had ruled in March 2012 that the deduction was lawful. The Employment Appeals Tribunal upheld that decision by majority in July 2014. The High Court appeal concerned the legal meaning of “public service body” under FEMPI (No. 2), rather than a rehearing of the earlier proceedings.
The Act’s definition required the body to be funded wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, from public money, and to have a public service pension scheme that existed, applied or could be made in respect of it. The judge found that Mount Anville received Exchequer funding, including direct payments for teachers’ and special needs assistants’ salaries, as well as grants. The school’s teachers were employed by the school, although the State paid their salaries.
The judge also found that a public service pension scheme existed in the school because qualifying teachers could join it. The fact that the secretary herself could not access that scheme did not prevent the school meeting the statutory test, which could apply where a scheme was available to some, but not all, staff.
Nic Bhrádaig argued that cutting her salary did not save money for the State because the savings did not return to the Exchequer. The judge said the statutory language was clear and the legislation’s stated purpose could not override it. The court accepted that the school might not benefit from the reduction, but held that the Act covered her for its purposes. The appeal was rejected and the EAT’s order affirmed. The ruling addressed her status under FEMPI (No. 2) only.