The High Court allowed appeals by the Minister for Agriculture and Food against an Employment Appeals Tribunal determination that five temporary veterinary inspectors were employed under contracts of service. The court did not decide their employment status; it said it would hear submissions on what orders should follow.
The inspectors worked at the Galtee Meats plant in Mitchelstown, County Cork, which closed in October 2004. They sought redundancy payments and payments under minimum notice legislation. The Minister refused their claims on the basis that they had worked under contracts for services, rather than as employees. The tribunal considered the status question as a preliminary issue and ruled in March 2007 that the five were employees.
The Minister appealed on questions of law under the Redundancy Payments Acts and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act. The High Court, in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice John Edwards on 7 July 2008, found that the tribunal had wrongly limited its inquiry to a choice between a contract of service and a contract for services. It said the tribunal should have considered whether there was one contract or several, the scope of any contracts, and their nature. The court noted that the relationship might involve individual engagements, an overarching agreement, another type of contract or no contract.
The court also found that the tribunal’s conclusion that there was mutuality of obligation rested on an untenable implied agreement for ongoing work. The evidence, the judgment said, did not support an implied commitment by the Minister to offer work and by the inspectors to accept it on an ongoing basis.
The judgment further held that the tribunal had misread the Supreme Court’s decision in Henry Denny & Sons (Ireland) Ltd v Minister for Social Welfare. The question whether a worker was in business on their own account could help assess employment status, but was not a universal or decisive test. Control, integration and other relevant factors could also assist, depending on the circumstances. The tribunal had erred by treating the so-called enterprise test as determinative and applying it formulaically.
The inspectors’ submissions described arrangements including departmental rostering and supervision, personal performance of the work, equipment supplied at the plant, and hourly pay with PAYE and PRSI deductions. The High Court’s decision addressed the legal errors in the tribunal’s preliminary determination, rather than resolving the underlying entitlement to payments. It allowed the appeals and reserved the question of appropriate orders for further submissions.