The High Court has quashed an Employment Appeal Tribunal decision in a dispute involving nine teachers and maternity leave, finding that the tribunal made an error of law. The case has been remitted to the tribunal for a new decision with an appropriate factual and legal basis.
The dispute concerns a Department of Education circular introduced in 2013. Under the earlier 2011 circular, teachers could take leave that accrued during maternity leave on working days, which the court said meant term-time days. The 2013 circular required annual leave to be taken on school closure days, with limited provision to take or carry days into another period where closures were insufficient.
The teachers had challenged the change after they were already pregnant and had notified their schools; one was already on maternity leave when the new circular was introduced. They argued that the arrangements under the 2011 circular should continue to apply to their pregnancies. They lost before a Rights Commissioner but succeeded on appeal to the tribunal in October 2019. The tribunal found a breach of section 22(4) of the Maternity Protection Act 1994 and the Pregnancy Directive, and awarded the teachers varying amounts of days in lieu.
The Minister appealed to the High Court on a point of law. Justice Niamh Hyland said section 22(4) prevents maternity leave from being treated as another type of leave to which an employee is entitled. In this case, the 2013 circular allowed annual leave to accrue and be taken after maternity leave, during school closures, with a term-time fallback in some cases. The court concluded that this arrangement did not itself require maternity leave to be treated as annual leave.
The judge also considered whether the tribunal might have treated all school closure periods as annual leave. She found no legal or factual basis for that approach in the tribunal’s decision, and said the teachers had not advanced it as their case. The judgment noted that the tribunal’s decision did not explain its reasoning. However, the Minister’s appeal was confined to the point of law identified in its notice, so the court could not consider inadequate reasons as a separate ground of appeal.
The court quashed the tribunal’s decision but did not decide whether the teachers’ separate argument about rights or expectations under the 2011 circular should succeed. It remitted the matter so the tribunal could identify the factual and legal basis for a new decision and give adequate reasons. The Rights Commissioner’s decision was not substituted for the quashed tribunal ruling.