The High Court has sent back for reconsideration a decision that conservator Lorna Barnes was an employee of the National Museum of Ireland from 2004 to 2011, finding that the Appeals Officer had not clearly set out the facts and had relied on an email the Museum could not address at the hearing.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Murphy on 7 March 2016, arose from the Museum’s appeal on points of law under section 327 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. The Court did not decide whether Ms Barnes was an employee during the disputed period. It remitted the matter to the Appeals Officer to reconsider in line with its findings.
The Appeals Officer had determined that Ms Barnes was in insurable employment at PRSI Class A from 1 January 2004 to 31 July 2011. The officer had found that she worked as a self-employed conservator from 1 August 2011, partially upholding the Museum’s appeal against an earlier decision that covered a longer period.
The Museum argued that a 2012 Rights Commissioner decision, made in a separate holiday-pay claim, had already determined that Ms Barnes was not an employee and should prevent the social welfare authorities from deciding the issue again. The High Court rejected that argument. It said the relevant legislation created different procedures for different employment issues and did not make one decision-making body’s ruling binding on another.
However, the Court said the earlier decision was based on largely the same circumstances and should have been addressed. It also found a fundamental deficiency in the Appeals Officer’s decision: it did not clearly identify the facts relied on, resolve disputed evidence, or explain the weight given to it. The Court said there was no apparent evidential basis for some conclusions, including that the Museum would have hired Ms Barnes part-time if it had permission to do so, and that her options for increasing her earnings were limited or non-existent.
The Court also found that the Appeals Officer had placed significant weight on extracts from an internal email dated 7 April 2005. The email was not raised during the hearing, so the Museum had no opportunity to comment on it. The officer had also not explained why selected passages were preferred over other parts of the email or other evidence. The Court held that this made the hearing and decision unsatisfactory and breached the requirement to give the Museum an opportunity to address material relied on.
The order granted the Museum specified reliefs and remitted the case to the Appeals Officer. It did not rule on Ms Barnes’s separate claim under fixed-term work legislation, which the judgment said had been adjourned pending the outcome of these proceedings.