The High Court has dismissed an appeal by five temporary veterinary inspectors who sought redundancy and minimum-notice payments after the Galtee Meats plant in Mitchelstown closed in October 2004.
The inspectors argued that the Employment Appeals Tribunal had wrongly reversed an earlier determination that they were employees. They asked the High Court to return their claims to the Tribunal, which had decided in July 2009 that they worked under contracts for services.
The Tribunal’s first determination, in March 2007, found that the inspectors were employed under contracts of service. On an appeal by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the High Court in July 2008 found errors of law, including the Tribunal’s treatment of mutuality of obligation, and returned the claims for reconsideration. After hearing further evidence, the Tribunal said it considered itself bound to reverse its original decision.
In the present appeal, the inspectors submitted that the 2008 judgment had remitted the matter without directing the Tribunal to change its conclusion. They also relied on evidence about weeks worked, rostered shifts and an alleged expectation that they accept 84% of shifts to avoid demotion. The Minister disputed that the further evidence changed the position, and said there was no obligation to provide work.
The court considered whether the inspectors had shown that no reasonable tribunal, properly applying the law, could have reached the decision under appeal. It noted that evidence about weeks worked came from documents already submitted and that working many weeks did not, by itself, establish mutual obligations to provide and perform work.
The court also considered the disputed 84% shift requirement. The inspectors said failing to accept enough shifts could lead to demotion. A witness for the Minister disputed that the department required attendance at that level or imposed sanctions. The court said there was no evidence that these inspectors risked losing work or being moved to the end of the list, or that the department monitored compliance with the alleged rule.
The court said the Tribunal’s determination might have been better phrased, but concluded that the additional evidence was not crucial enough to prevent a reasonable tribunal from finding that the inspectors worked under contracts for services. It refused to return the claims to the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. It did not need to decide whether the earlier High Court judgment had expressly directed the Tribunal how to apply the law to the facts.