Art teacher's employment status case sent back to Labour Court for reconsideration

The High Court has ordered the case of an art teacher at Blackrock College in Dublin for 34 years to be reconsidered by the Labour Court after it overturned a finding in her favour in relation to her legal status as an employee.

Since 1984, Valerie Coyle was employed on a series on fixed-term contracts which were renewed at the start of the academic year for nine months. During school holidays between June and August, she had to sign on for Job Seeker's benefit.

In 2016, she put in a claim that she was entitled to redress under the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act of 2003 and also entitled to a contract of indefinite duration.

The college resisted her claim and argued she was a permanent employee notwithstanding that she was not paid during the holidays when she was on "lay-off" periods.

A Workplace Relations Commission adjudication officer found she was a fixed-term employee, had been treated less favourably than other teachers and directed she be place on an annual 12-month salary. She was also awarded €5,000 compensation.

The college appealed to the Labour Court which set aside the adjudication officer's decision. It found she was a permanent employee and not entitled to the provisions of the fixed-term legislation.

It said she was employed on a 39-week contract, was laid off each June and resumed work in September.

She brought an appeal to the High Court arguing, among other things, the Labour Court erred in law.

Mr Justice Charlies Meenan ruled the Labour Court should rehear her case.

He said that in reaching its finding the Labour Court did not appear to have any regard to a letter from the college's solicitor which acknowledged she was not employed during the summer but regarded her as a permanent employee as she always had an expectation of returning to work after the holidays.

The judge could not see how the Labour Court could have made its finding in light of that "clear admission in open correspondence from the solicitors to the college".

He also found the hearing before the Labour Court was unsatisfactory. He said if Ms Coyle had been refused an opportunity to give evidence, as she alleged, this would amount to a departure from fair procedures and legally undermine the Labour Court's determination.