The Court of Appeal has ruled that the Health Service Executive breached Helen Earley’s employment contract when it reassigned her from her clinical and operational role as Area Director of Nursing for Galway and Roscommon Mental Health Services to non-operational duties in a national programme office.
The court allowed Ms Earley’s appeal from a 2015 High Court decision that had found the reassignment lawful. It declared that the reassignment in July 2015 breached her contract. The court invited the parties to make further submissions on whether any additional relief was necessary or appropriate; it did not determine that question in this judgment.
Ms Earley was appointed to the area director post in November 2012. Her contract provided for work in Galway and Roscommon Mental Health Services, with possible work in a nearby service area, and allowed her to take on additional duties appropriate to her position. The Court of Appeal held that these terms did not permit the HSE to move her into a materially different, non-clinical and non-operational role. It also rejected the HSE’s arguments that the contract contained an implied reassignment power or that such a power arose under section 22 of the Health Act 2004.
The reassignment followed complaints received by the HSE in April and May 2015 about alleged incidents at facilities in the area and how senior staff had handled them. An identified staff member also made a protected disclosure. The HSE commissioned a review of Roscommon mental health services and said the reassignment was a temporary, protective measure, not a disciplinary process or investigation of Ms Earley. She was reassigned without her agreement, while her pay and other conditions were unchanged.
The High Court had concluded that the reassignment was not a fundamentally different job and that the contract allowed it. The Court of Appeal disagreed. It found that Ms Earley’s contracted post combined clinical and managerial responsibilities, including being Head of Nursing for the area, and that the new duties materially changed the nature of her job. The fact that the move was described as temporary and without prejudice, and did not affect her remuneration, did not alter the breach.