The High Court has allowed an art teacher’s appeal on a point of law and sent her employment case back to the Labour Court for rehearing. It did not decide whether she was entitled to a contract of indefinite duration or award her compensation.
The case concerns Valerie Coyle, who had worked as an art teacher at Blackrock College since 1984. She was engaged on contracts covering the academic year and, according to the judgment, had to claim Jobseeker’s Benefit during June, July and August. Coyle argued that she was a fixed-term employee entitled to redress under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003. The college maintained that she was a permanent employee who was laid off during the summer.
A Workplace Relations Commission adjudication officer had found that Coyle was a fixed-term employee and had been treated less favourably than other teachers. The officer directed the college to pay her an annual salary over 12 months and awarded €5,000, finding a breach of the Act’s requirement to give written reasons for renewing fixed-term contracts and not offering a contract of indefinite duration.
The Labour Court later allowed the college’s appeal and set aside that decision. It found that Coyle had been employed on a permanent annual 39-week contract, laid off in June and returning in September. Coyle appealed to the High Court under section 46 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, which limited the court’s role to considering points of law rather than rehearing the case itself.
Mr Justice Meenan said the Labour Court’s conclusion required a finding that Coyle had a legal right to resume work each school year, implying continuing mutual obligations during the summer. But the judgment noted she was on a 39-week contract, was not paid for the summer, and her P35 records showed 39 weeks of insurable employment.
The judge also relied on a letter from the college’s solicitors stating that Coyle was not employed by the college during the summer, although it regarded her as permanent because she expected to return. He said an expectation of returning fell short of a legal entitlement and concluded that, in light of the letter and P35 records, no reasonable decision-making body could find that she was a permanent employee.
A separate dispute about whether Coyle had been refused the chance to give evidence at the Labour Court hearing remained unresolved. Affidavits from the parties’ solicitors conflicted, and no transcript was available. The judge said the issue could be resolved only through a transcript or cross-examination; if she had been refused an opportunity to give evidence, that could undermine the determination on fair-procedure grounds.
The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for rehearing. The ruling did not determine the underlying employment claim or restore the adjudication officer’s award.