The High Court upheld Sunday Newspapers Limited’s appeal against a Labour Court decision awarding two former fixed-term workers additional severance payments. The appeal was brought on points of law under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003.
The workers, Stephen Kinsella and Luke Bradley, had complained that they were treated less favourably than comparable permanent employees when the company closed its plant. A Rights Commissioner rejected their complaints after finding they had voluntarily accepted severance packages and signed agreements settling their employment claims. The Labour Court later found the complaints well founded. It held that the workers were entitled to further payments of €27,752.08 and €40,483.85, after they had each received an earlier severance payment.
In a judgment delivered on 3 October 2007, Mr Justice T.C. Smyth said the High Court’s role was limited to reviewing the Labour Court’s decision for legal error. He held that the severance agreements could settle statutory employment claims and that the agreements in this case expressly covered claims, whether stated or unstated, under employment legislation. He also found that the Labour Court’s conclusion on the effect of the agreements was not supportable in law.
The judge identified further errors in the Labour Court’s treatment of the company’s “Parting Terms” document and the choice of comparable employees. He concluded that the document did not establish that the workers had been offered the same terms as permanent staff, and that permanent employees doing the same or similar work should have been considered first as comparators. He also noted that although the Labour Court could treat an additional €5,000 payment as remuneration, it had not reached a concluded view on that issue.
The judgment records conflicting accounts of the signing process. The union’s submission said the workers signed under duress and without legal advice. The company argued they entered the agreements voluntarily after discussion and appropriate advice. The judge said the Labour Court had not adequately analysed the negotiations or resolved the conflict between the agreements and the workers’ stated intention to pursue claims.
The High Court allowed the company’s appeal. The judgment does not state a separate order for repayment of the earlier severance payments.