The High Court found that the Labour Court had erred in allowing two privately paid teachers at Catholic University School to compare their employment terms with Department-funded teachers. The court directed that it would hear further submissions on the effect of that finding; it did not make a final order disposing of the appeals in the judgment provided.
Ms Justice Dunne delivered the judgment on 20 July 2010 in three joined appeals: two brought by the school against Labour Court determinations concerning Colm Dooley, and one concerning Aoife Scannell. Dooley’s claims were under part-time and fixed-term work legislation; Scannell’s was under the part-time work legislation.
The teachers argued that they were treated less favourably than comparable Department-funded colleagues and were entitled to equivalent pay and conditions. The school disputed that comparison, saying the Department-funded teachers had different employment arrangements and that the school did not set their salary or other key terms.
The court considered the statutory test for choosing a comparator, the relationship between schools, teachers and the State, and whether differences in treatment could be objectively justified. It concluded that, although the Department-funded teachers appeared to meet the legislation’s definition of comparable full-time employees, the school set the terms of privately paid teachers while the Minister determined key terms for Department-funded teachers. For the purposes of the legislation, the court said the Department had to be viewed as the employer of the chosen comparators. It therefore held that the Labour Court erred in finding that the claimants could choose Department-funded teachers as comparators.
The court also rejected the school’s argument that the omission of the word “solely” from the Irish legislation meant the relevant European directives had been improperly transposed. It said that, given its finding on the comparator issue, it was unnecessary to decide the objective-justification arguments further. The judgment does not determine what terms or compensation, if any, the teachers ultimately receive. Instead, the court concluded by saying it would hear the parties on the effect of its finding.