The High Court has refused the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection’s appeal against a Labour Court determination that Mary Dunne’s employment transferred to the Department’s Intreo office in Edenderry after a social welfare branch office closed.
The appeal was on a point of law under section 46 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015. Mr Justice Michael MacGrath delivered judgment on 4 July 2019. He did not rehear the case or make fresh findings of fact. He concluded that the Minister had not shown that the Labour Court made an error of law, reached an unsustainable factual finding or placed undue weight on the evidence. The appeal was therefore refused.
Ms Nuala Heffernan had run the branch office under a contract for services with the Department. She provided premises and staff and delivered social welfare payment services as the Department’s agent. Ms Dunne was employed by Ms Heffernan from June 2002 until the branch ceased operating in December 2015, when Ms Heffernan retired. The Department brought the services into its existing office in the town, which became an Intreo office.
The Labour Court had determined that a transfer of undertaking occurred and that Ms Dunne was entitled to transfer on no less favourable terms and conditions, with continuity of service preserved. It treated the service users’ files and data as significant operational assets and found that the relevant services continued through the Intreo office.
The Minister argued that the branch was not an economic entity, that the activity was an exercise of public authority, and that the Department’s reorganisation fell within the exception for administrative reorganisations. The Minister also challenged the Labour Court’s assessment of whether the branch retained its identity, citing the lack of transferred employees or premises and the wider range of services offered by Intreo.
The High Court said the Labour Court could not be criticised for failing to address arguments that had not been meaningfully raised before it. It declined to entertain the separate argument under the administrative reorganisation exception. It considered the economic activity issue despite its limited treatment below, but noted that questions such as functional autonomy were fact-dependent and had not been directly addressed in the Labour Court.
On retention of identity, the High Court found no basis to overturn the Labour Court’s overall assessment. It accepted that continued service delivery alone was not decisive, but said the Labour Court had also considered the transfer of assets, employees and service users. While the High Court might have taken a different view of the files and data, that disagreement did not make the Labour Court’s finding legally unsustainable. The judgment leaves the Labour Court’s determination in place; it does not set out a separate order directing the Department to employ Ms Dunne.