The Supreme Court has allowed the Minister for Education and Skills’ appeal over whether the Minister was Anne Boyle’s employer for the purposes of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001. The court found that the relationship between them did not amount to a contract of service under that Act. It said the Labour Court’s decision was wrong in law and should be quashed, while reserving the precise order for further submissions.
Ms Boyle taught at Hillside Park, a pre-school for children from the travelling community in Galway, from 1989 until it closed in 2011. The pre-school was managed by a voluntary committee. For most of her employment, the Minister funded 98% of the salary calculated for her post through a grant paid to the committee; the committee also contributed funds. The Minister set pay arrangements and related entitlements, but the committee controlled her work. Ms Boyle was made redundant when the school closed and received a statutory redundancy payment of €18,000 from the Minister.
In 2009, Ms Boyle complained to a rights commissioner, arguing that she was a part-time employee and had been treated less favourably than a full-time teacher in an Early Start unit at a national school. She said they shared the same employer, the Minister. The rights commissioner rejected her complaint, finding that the Minister was neither her employer nor an associated employer for the purposes of the Act.
The Labour Court reversed that decision. It treated the Minister as Ms Boyle’s employer, found that she and her comparator were employed by the same employer and did work of equal value, and directed that she be admitted to the National School Teachers’ Superannuation Scheme from September 2008 and paid €10,000 compensation. On judicial review, the High Court upheld the employment and less-favourable-treatment findings but held that the Labour Court could not order admission to the pension scheme. The Court of Appeal agreed. Ms Boyle did not appeal the pension-scheme issue, so it was not before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s appeal concerned whether the Minister was Ms Boyle’s employer for pay-related purposes under the 2001 Act. The court distinguished that law from other employment statutes that can make a paymaster or a person responsible for remuneration liable. It concluded that the committee, which controlled Ms Boyle’s work, was the other party to her contract of service. The Minister’s funding and role in setting pay did not make the Minister a party to such a contract under this Act.
The court allowed the appeal and concluded that the Labour Court’s finding must be quashed. It did not make the precise order in the judgment, saying it would hear counsel further on that question.