Court rules on two teachers paid privately by school

A PRIVATE school is entitled to treat two teachers it directly employs less favourably in terms of pay and conditions than teachers…

A PRIVATE school is entitled to treat two teachers it directly employs less favourably in terms of pay and conditions than teachers paid by the Department of Education, the High Court has ruled.

Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne yesterday overturned a Labour Court finding that two teachers in the Catholic University School (CUS) were entitled to be compared with department-funded teachers when terms and conditions were assessed. CUS is a Marist Fathers-run primary and secondary school for boys in Leeson Street, Dublin.

The judge said the department determines the terms and conditions of teachers directly paid by it, while the school’s board of management determines those of privately paid teachers. The Labour Court had therefore fallen into error in finding they were entitled to compare their situations with those of their colleagues paid from the public purse, she said.

The school had “no hand, act or part” in determining the salaries of the department-funded teachers and it was, under legislation relating to agency workers, the employer of the two teachers, she said.

READ MORE

The judge rejected arguments that department-paid teachers doing the same work have the same type of “employment contract or relationship” with the school as the two privately paid teachers.

The High Court heard the two teachers were among a small number privately paid by the school while the department pays the majority of salaries. There was no dispute the two are treated less favourably than their department-paid colleagues, including incremental increases, qualification allowances and other conditions of employment. Their claims related to rights provided by recent legislation for part-time workers and fixed-term contracts which came about as a result of EU directives.

A rights commissioner found part-time teachers in the school were treated less favourably than comparable full-time teachers and these findings were then upheld by the Labour Court. The school argued the comparison should not have been made with department-funded full-time teachers but rather with other privately paid full-time teachers in its employment. The two part-time teachers had been treated equally and no less favourably than those full-time privately paid teachers, it said.

In her judgment yesterday, Ms Justice Dunne said department-paid teachers’ terms and conditions are negotiated under a teachers’ conciliation council which makes them subject to redeployment, while a privately paid teacher is not subject to this.

The qualifications of a department-paid teacher are determined by a teaching council, while such qualifications are not necessary for private teachers.

A State-employed teacher also has to undergo a period of probation, and is entitled to a post of responsibility, career breaks, job sharing and certain pension benefits, while the private teacher is entitled to none of these, the judge said.

She rejected an argument by the school that there was objective justification, under the EU directive which led to the Irish legislation, for less favourable treatment. That would defeat the purpose of the legislation which was to prevent discrimination against workers because of their status as fixed-term or part-time workers.

However, because she had already found the school was entitled to compare part-time private teachers with their full-time counterparts rather than with department-funded counterparts, there was no need to further address arguments on this issue.

The judge adjourned the case until next week when an application will be made by the school to have the matter sent back to the Labour Court.