The Supreme Court has set aside a High Court order concerning five temporary veterinary inspectors’ claims for statutory payments after the closure of the Galtee Meats plant in Mitchelstown, County Cork, in October 2004. The claims will return to the Employment Appeals Tribunal, which must decide whether each inspector was an employee of the Minister for Agriculture and Food.
The dispute concerns claims under the Redundancy Payments Acts and the Minimum Notice Acts. The inspectors’ status as employees or contractors determines whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the substantive claims.
In 2007, the tribunal decided by a majority that the five inspectors were employees under contracts of service. The Minister appealed on a point of law. In 2008, the High Court made declarations identifying legal errors in the tribunal’s approach and returned the claims to it. That order did not direct the tribunal what conclusion to reach after reconsidering the matter.
After hearing additional evidence, the tribunal issued a second determination in 2009. It found sufficient mutuality of obligation for the inspectors to be considered possible employees, but concluded it was bound to reverse its original decision. It classified them as working under contracts for services and said it had no jurisdiction to hear the substantive claims.
The inspectors appealed. In 2011, the High Court rejected that appeal after assessing the additional evidence. It concluded that no reasonable tribunal could find that the inspectors were employed under contracts of service. The judge did not address the inspectors’ central argument: that the tribunal had misunderstood the 2008 order as requiring it to reverse its earlier decision.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to address that issue and set aside its 2011 order. It did not decide whether the inspectors were employees or whether they are entitled to payments. Instead, the case must return to the tribunal for it to determine each inspector’s status against the evidence and relevant legal principles, and then decide whether the statutory claims have been established. The Court noted that the working relationship was unusual and difficult to classify.