A part-time teacher was not employed by the Minister for Education while working for 20 years at a pre-school for Traveller children which was grant aided by the Minister, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The issues in Anne Boyle’s case “have the potential to affect a much wider category of employment arrangement” where third parties may be said to provide the funding for a contract of employment, the court noted.
The five judge court overturned findings by the Labour Court, which had been upheld by the High Court and Court of Appeal, that Anne Boyle was an employee of the Minister for the purposes of the Protection of Employees (Part Time Work) Act 2001.
It was not satisfied the Minister was involved in a “contract of service” with Ms Boyle, the court said.
School resources
The lack of a pension scheme for Ms Boyle was more a matter of the resources available at her school “rather than any issue connected with the Minister”, it added.
Ms Boyle, a qualified secondary school teacher of Monivea Park, Galway, was not in court.
She taught for 20 years at the Hillside Park pre-school for Travellers in Galway. She was the only teacher in the school, which opened each week day for three hours and was managed by a voluntary management committee.
It was not a national or recognised school within the meaning of the Education Act 1998.
It was primarily funded via a grant from the Minister and closed in 2011 after the Minister stopped such grants and introduced a universal pre-school scheme.
For most of her employment, 98 per cent of Ms Boyle’s salary was paid out of a grant from the Minister to the management committee. The Minister also paid her redundancy.
Pension benefits
In 2009, Ms Boyle sought access to the national school teachers superannuation scheme, which provides pension benefits. She was refused by the Minister on grounds she was not a national school teacher employed in a national school.
After she complained of discrimination, the Labour Court found she was an employee of the Minister, awarded her €10,000 over discrimination and directed her admission to the superannuation scheme, effective from September 2008.
The Minister appealed to the High Court but that court ruled that teachers whose salaries are publicly funded must be deemed for the purpose of the 2001 Act to be employees of the Minister.
The High Court agreed Ms Boyle was entitled to compensation but, because it found the Labour Court had no power to retrospectively direct her admission to the superannuation scheme, asked the Labour Court to reconsider the compensation sum.
After the Court of Appeal endorsed the High Court findings, the Minister appealed to the Supreme Court over Ms Boyle’s employment status.
Because she did not seek to appeal the finding, the Labour Court could not direct her admission to the superannuation scheme, that was not an issue in the appeal.
Narrow question
Giving the Supreme Court’s judgment on Thursday, the Chief Justice Mr Justice Frank Clarke said the unusual tripartite arrangements whereby much education in Ireland is funded means, for ordinary day to day control, teachers have their contractual relations with a board of management but most teachers are paid by the Minister.
The narrow question on the facts of this case was whether the Minister can be regarded as an employer of Ms Boyle for the purposes of the 2001 Act, or at least for the purposes of the Act insofar as it relates to financial and pay matters.
The case came down to deciding whether the Minister was involved in a “contract of service” with Ms Boyle and he was not satisfied the relationship “could be so characterised”.
Ms Boyle was somewhat more remote from the Minister than many teachers because she was not, for the vast majority of her time at the school, paid directly by the Minister but was paid by Hillside Park out of a grant from the Minister, he said.
Other employees of a different employer, for example Barnardos, who were supported by the same grant scheme, had given their employees improved terms and conditions via access to a pension scheme, he said.
That was not to criticise Hillside Park as it did not have the resources to provide enhanced terms but that possibility emphasised, even at the financial level, Ms Boyle’s terms and conditions were not, “at the level of princple” wholly governed by the Minister.
