The High Court has rejected a teacher’s appeal claiming entitlement to a permanent post at Mount Temple Comprehensive School after five years on successive fixed-term contracts.
Fergus Russell taught Engineering, Metalwork and Technical Drawing at the Dublin school from September 2002 until August 2007. He was covering the position of Timothy Vaughan, who was on a career break.
Although Russell’s contract was renewed annually, only one formal written contract was provided. It stated that his employment was temporary and linked to Vaughan’s career break.
In March 2007, Vaughan notified the school that he would resign from the following September. Russell then asserted that he was entitled under the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003 to the resulting permanent post.
The school disagreed and advertised the vacancy. Russell applied and was interviewed in August 2007 but was unsuccessful. His employment ended when his fixed-term contract expired on 31 August.
A Rights Commissioner initially found in Russell’s favour. The Labour Court reversed that decision. It held that when Russell’s final contract was renewed in September 2006, Vaughan was still on career break and that this provided an objective reason for another fixed-term contract.
Mr Justice Michael Hanna upheld that reasoning. He said section 9 of the 2003 Act examines whether objective grounds existed when a fixed-term contract was renewed. A later event, such as Vaughan’s resignation, did not retrospectively make an otherwise lawful renewal unlawful.
Russell sought in the High Court to argue that his employment had instead been for the specific purpose of covering Vaughan’s absence. The judge declined to decide the appeal on that new basis because it had not been the case presented to the Labour Court.
The court also upheld the Labour Court’s conclusion that the ending of Russell’s employment did not amount to prohibited penalisation under the Act. His contract expired and the permanent vacancy was filled following a competition.
The appeal on a point of law was therefore refused.