The Supreme Court has overturned a High Court ruling in a long-running dispute over whether five veterinary surgeons who worked at a meat plant in Mitchelstown were employees of the Minister for Agriculture and Food or self-employed contractors. It directed that the Employment Appeals Tribunal rehear the matter and decide the employment-status question.
The vets had worked as temporary veterinary inspectors at the Galtee Meats plant, which closed in October 2004. They claimed statutory redundancy and minimum-notice entitlements after the Minister told them no further work was available. The Minister maintained that they were self-employed. The Supreme Court stressed that deciding entitlement to those benefits was for the Tribunal, not the courts in this appeal.
In 2007, the Tribunal found by a majority that the vets were employees under contracts of service. The Minister appealed on a point of law, and the High Court overturned that ruling in 2008. The matter returned to the Tribunal, which in 2009 reversed its earlier determination. Although it maintained that the working relationship could allow the vets to be classified as possible employees, the Tribunal said it felt bound to treat the High Court judgment as requiring a finding that they were self-employed. It concluded that it had no jurisdiction to proceed with substantive hearings.
The vets’ appeal against that second Tribunal ruling was refused by the High Court in 2011. The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal had erred by treating the earlier High Court judgment as a direction to find for the Minister. A statutory appeal on a question of law did not allow the High Court to replace the Tribunal’s findings of fact or decide the employment-status issue itself.
The Supreme Court did not decide whether the vets were employees or self-employed, or whether any of them qualified for redundancy or minimum-notice payments. It said the employment-status question was for the Tribunal to determine on a rehearing, on the facts of each case. The Court also noted that a working arrangement could change over time, and that the Tribunal might need to identify when, if at all, a person’s status changed.
The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Charleton on 16 July 2015. It records that the appeal also concurred with a separate judgment by Ms Justice Laffoy.