Court of Appeal: Part-time teacher entitled to compensation for being excluded from Superannuation Scheme

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2017] IECA 39
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Appeal
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Gerard Hogan

Background

Ms Anne Boyle was recruited and employed as a teacher in a grant-aided pre-school for the children of members of the travelling community for over 20 years, until it was closed in 2011. A grant amounting to 98% of the salary payable to a primary school teacher was paid by the Minister for Education to the Management Committee of Hillside Park Preschool in respect of her salary.

In 2009, Ms Boyle made a complaint to the Rights Commissioner service pursuant to the provisions of the Protection of Employees (Part Time Work) Act 2001, claiming that she was treated less favourably than full-time workers by not being admitted to the National Teachers Superannuation Scheme.

Before this complaint could be processed, however, Ms Boyle was made redundant in consequence of the closure of special pre-schools (such as Hillside); and a redundancy payment was made by the Minister.

In January 2011 the Rights Commissioner upheld the arguments made on behalf of the Department of Education, concluding that it was neither the employer nor an associate employer of Ms Boyle within the meaning of the Protection of Employees (Part Time Work) Act 2001.

Labour Court

In 2012, the Rights Commissioner’s decision was appealed to the Labour Court, which found that the management committee exercised no control over the remuneration and other conditions attaching to her employment, and that these matters were “exclusively controlled” by the Minister.

The Labour Court decided that Ms Boyle was an employee of the Minister within the meaning of the Protection of Employees (Part Time Work) Act 2001, and that she had been treated less favourably than a full-time comparator in relation to pension rights.

The Labour Court further directed that the Minister should admit her to the National Teachers Superannuation Scheme with effect from six months before the initiation of her claim, and pay her a sum of €10,000 by way of compensation for discriminating against her.

High Court

The Minister sought to quash the decision of the Labour Court on the ground that the Minister had no contractual relationship with Ms Boyle, and was not her employer within the meaning of the Protection of Employees (Part Time Work) Act 2001.

The High Court agreed with the Labour Court on the finding that Ms Boyle was an employee of the Minister; but held that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to direct that the Minister admit Ms Boyle in the superannuation scheme, as it was a statutory scheme which would have required the payment of contributions.

Court of Appeal

Mr Justice Gerard Hogan indicated that the nature of the triangular pact in Fox v. Higgins (1912) 46 I.L.T.R. 222 “still defies any standard conceptual analysis” of the contractual relationship between the Minister, the School, and the teacher.

Furthermore, it was necessary to consider Article 42.4 of the Constitution and the judgment of the Supreme Court in O’Keeffe v Hickey IESC 72, 2 I.R. 302.

While accepting that the position of Ms Boyle was slightly further removed from the Minister than that of the ordinary primary teacher, Justice Hogan found that the High Court was correct to hold that Ms Boyle was an employee of the Minister in relation to pay-related matters pursuant to an implied contract of employment within the meaning of the Protection of Employees (Part Time Work) Act 2001, even if she was not so employed for other purposes.

Justice Hogan was satisfied that the High Court was entitled to conclude that although Ms Boyle was not a national school teacher, or a teacher in a recognised school, she was employed on the same basis as such teachers.

She was found to have been treated less favourably than full-time teachers doing comparable work, and was therefore entitled to redress under the Protection of Employees (Part Time Work) Act 2001.

Justice Hogan was also in agreement with the High Court’s finding that the Labour Court was not empowered to order that Ms Boyle be admitted to the superannuation scheme, since this in effect amounted to a direction to the Minister to change or alter the terms of the National School Teachers’ Superannuation Scheme 1934 governing the superannuation scheme for teachers.

• by Seosamh Gráinséir for Irish Legal News