The High Court ruled that the Minister for Education and Skills acted unlawfully when he ended transport liaison officer allowances paid to two vocational education committee chief executives. The court held that the relevant local committees, not the Minister, had authority under the governing legislation to determine the CEOs’ terms and allowances.
In a judgment delivered on 29 May 2013, Mr Justice Hogan found that the Minister had no power to terminate the payments, which ceased for all VEC chief executives in June 2012. The judgment concerned the legal position before the Education and Training Boards Act 2013 came into force. The court said any issues arising under that Act would require separate proceedings.
The applicants, Seosamh MacDonncha and Katie Sweeney, were chief executives of Galway and Mayo VECs. The allowance had recently averaged about €11,000 to €12,000 a year for Dr Sweeney and slightly more than €12,000 for Mr MacDonncha. The judgment said the original purpose was to recognise extra administrative work connected with school transport, though much of that work had come to be done by support staff. The Minister’s position was that the applicants no longer performed the transport officer duties.
The court also rejected the applicants’ challenge to a 2012 circular setting pay categories for planned education and training boards. It found that the applicants’ statutory offices and entitlements remained in place until legislation took effect, and that the circular provided for the new categories to apply only from commencement of the new legislation. The Government could plan for legislative change, the judge said, but could not suspend existing law through executive action.
The applicants also argued that the CEO redeployment arrangements breached the Croke Park Agreement and their legitimate expectations. Mr MacDonncha was assigned his second preference, the Mayo, Sligo and Leitrim board, because a more senior person received his first choice in Galway. Dr Sweeney’s sole preference was that board, but she remained in a queue for a future appointment. The judge found no breach of the agreement, noting that it was an industrial relations arrangement that did not create enforceable legal rights or legitimate expectations for the applicants.
The Labour Court had recommended compensation of 1.5 times the annual allowance loss and further negotiations on pension effects. The High Court said that recommendation did not prevent the applicants from seeking a legal ruling on the allowance’s withdrawal. Its ruling on the allowance was limited to who had authority to end it under the law then in force; it did not decide issues under the 2013 Act.