An employee’s successive fixed term project roles were found to be objectively justified, with no entitlement to a contract of indefinite duration or evidence of penalisation, and all claims were dismissed.

The Complainant stated that she had been employed since 2005 in a permanent Grade 7 role before undertaking successive fixed-term appointments at Assistant Principal Officer level from 2019 to 2025. She stated that her first APO role, linked to the Munster Technological University (MTU) merger project, had been repeatedly renewed over a number of years, which she contended gave rise to an entitlement to a contract of indefinite duration under the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003.  She argued that the temporary designation applied by the Respondent did not negate that entitlement. She further relied on a second APO-level role and submitted that her proposed reversion to Grade 7 amounted to penalisation. The Complainant referred to comparators who had remained at higher grades or progressed following similar project roles, asserting a pattern of unequal treatment. She maintained that the Respondent exercised discretion inconsistently and that she had been treated unfairly despite her qualifications and service.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant’s fixed-term roles were grounded in specific, time-limited projects and were objectively justified. It was stated that the MTU merger project was a finite organisational transformation, and that the relevant project-lead roles ceased to exist upon completion of that phase. The Respondent further submitted that their role was externally funded, limited in duration, and unrelated to the merger project. They emphasised that all roles had been openly advertised and filled through competitive processes, and that the Complainant had not applied for subsequent opportunities. The Respondent denied any attempt to avoid conferring a contract of indefinite duration and maintained that all staff in similar positions reverted to their substantive roles upon project completion. It was also asserted that the alleged comparators were not in analogous circumstances and that any differences in outcome arose from separate recruitment processes rather than unfair treatment.

The Adjudicating found that the fixed-term roles held by the Complainant were supported by objective grounds within the meaning of the 2003 Act. It was accepted that the specific posts linked to the MTU merger project had ceased to exist following the dissolution of the project office, and that the role had concluded in line with its defined funding period. The Adjudicator distinguished the case from prior authorities, noting that the work performed did not form part of the Respondent’s ongoing core activities but related to discrete, time-bound initiatives. It was further held that no entitlement to a contract of indefinite duration arose. In relation to penalisation, the Adjudicator found no causal link between the Complainant’s invocation of statutory rights and her reversion to Grade 7, which was deemed a natural consequence of contract expiry. Claims of less favourable treatment and failure to provide opportunities were also rejected.

Employers should:                

• Ensure that fixed-term contracts are clearly linked to identifiable, time-limited projects or funding streams, and that the objective grounds underpinning such contracts are documented contemporaneously. 
  
• Make sure subsequent roles are transparent and conducted through open competition. Where fixed-term roles conclude, employers should be able to demonstrate that the specific posts have ceased or materially changed, rather than relying on general assertions that work continues. 
  
• Take care to ensure consistency in treatment across staff and to manage expectations where employees temporarily act at higher grades. Communication should make clear that such roles are finite and do not guarantee progression. 
  
  

The full case can be found here.