The Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling that the Minister for Education and Skills was Anne Boyle’s employer for pay-related purposes under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001. It also confirmed that the Labour Court had no power to order her admission to the National Teachers Superannuation Scheme.
Ms Boyle taught for more than 20 years at a grant-aided preschool for children from the travelling community. She worked 15 hours a week. The Department paid a grant covering 98% of the salary payable to a primary school teacher to the preschool’s management committee; later, under a phased change, teachers were paid directly.
Ms Boyle complained in 2009 that she had been treated less favourably than a full-time comparator because she was not admitted to the pension scheme. The Labour Court found that the Minister controlled her pay and employment conditions, while the management committee controlled her day-to-day work. It decided that she and the comparator did work of equal value and found discrimination. The Labour Court ordered her admission to the pension scheme from six months before her complaint and awarded €10,000 compensation.
The Minister sought judicial review, arguing that he was not Ms Boyle’s employer. The High Court held that he was her employer for the purposes of the 2001 Act, but ruled that the Labour Court could not order admission to the statutory pension scheme. It remitted compensation for reconsideration in light of that limit. Both sides appealed aspects of the High Court judgment.
The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan on 24 February 2017, upheld the High Court’s conclusions. It found that, although the management committee hired and directed Ms Boyle, the Minister set her pay and employment benefits. For pay-related rights under the 2001 Act, the court concluded there was an implied employment contract between Ms Boyle and the Minister. It said the finding was specific to those matters and did not determine her employment status for every legal purpose.
The court also upheld the ruling that the Labour Court could not require the Minister to admit Ms Boyle to the pension scheme, whose eligibility terms were set by legislation. It said redress under the 2001 Act was confined to compensation. The Court of Appeal did not state a new compensation amount in its conclusions; the High Court had remitted that issue to the Labour Court for reconsideration.
The court said it was unnecessary to decide whether the Minister was entitled to use judicial review. Its conclusions left in place the finding that Ms Boyle was entitled to redress for less favourable treatment under the Act, while limiting the form that redress could take.