FACTS
Regina Wallace was employed at the Irish Aviation Authority’s (IAA) training centre at Ballycasey, Shannon, Co. Clare and was required to perform certain clerical and administrative functions. Ms. Wallace had taken 759 sick days over a nine year period which was described by the IAA Director of Human Resources as an “unprecedented level of absenteeism”. Ms. Wallace had previously received written warnings regarding her attendance record. On the 16th February, she failed to turn up to work and failed to notify her employer. A disciplinary hearing was convened.
Ms. Wallace had previously made two bullying and harassment complaints against two superior officers, one of which was upheld, the other which was under investigation. One of the persons against whom a complaint of bullying and harassment was made was in attendance at this disciplinary hearing. Ms. Wallace objected to the presence of the superior officer, but her objection was overruled. The disciplinary hearing panel concluded that Ms. Wallace was to be dismissed. Ms. Wallace duly appealed the decision and the Authority placed Ms. Wallace on administrative leave with full pay pending her appeal against the dismissal.
Ms. Wallace sought an interlocutory injunction preventing her being put on administrative leave pending the appeal.
DETERMINATION
The central issue was whether the court should grant interlocutory relief in an employment case which specifically enforced an individual’s contract of employment.
The court commenced by examining the collective agreement governing Ms. Wallace’s employment with the IAA. The Agreement provided that “Disciplinary action will not be taken pending the outcome of an appeal... The outcome of the appeal will be notified to the employee in writing and if it is decided to take disciplinary action it will be implemented at this stage”.
In the first instances, Mr. Justice Hogan concluded that Ms. Wallace had a contractual entitlement to remain in position pending the outcome of any appeal against a disciplinary decision.
The Court continued by examining the principles set down in the Campus Oil case in order to decide whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted. In particular Hogan J. found as follows:
1. Ms. Wallace had a fair question to be tried, i.e. she had contractual entitlements.
2. Damages would not be an adequate remedy because of the reputational damage which would inevitably arise following any form of suspension from employment. Mr. Justice Hogan aptly commented that “the very fact of suspension is enough, in this valley of squinting windows, to expose the employee to the decidedly unpleasant prospect of calumny and detraction at the hands of the unforgiving and the uncharitable.”
3. In a classic interlocutory injunction case, judges endeavour to hold the balance of convenience pending the determination of difficult questions of law or conflicts of facts. However, he recognised that this was a case of construction, more specifically; would the placing of Ms. Wallace on administrative leave on full pay amount to disciplinary action? The court found that there were no difficult questions of law or conflict of fact in this particular application. For this reason and the fact that the interlocutory injunction would effectively resolve the outcome of the main proceedings (given that the outcome of the appeal would be determined by the time the action would come onto full hearing), the Court felt that the Campus Oil principles need not be applied rigidly or in a formalistic manner.
In conclusion, Hogan J. granted Ms. Wallace an interlocutory injunction restraining the IAA from placing her on administrative leave pending the outcome of her appeal against the disciplinary decision.
The court did not comment on the on the composition of the disciplinary panel and in particular the whether the presence of the person against whom a complaint of bullying and harassment was made was justifiable.
LEGAL REVIEW
Generally speaking, there are strict criteria to be met before a court will grant an interlocutory injunction. Nevertheless, the courts will grant such injunctions whenever it is just and convenient to do so. In this particular case, Hogan J was mindful of his constitutional duty to provide real and effective relief to remedy any injustice caused to Ms. Wallace. The IAA had given a contractual commitment that disciplinary action would not be taken pending the outcome of an appeal and the court found that administrative leave with full pay did amount to disciplinary action.
Hogan J accepted that the enforcement of the contractual obligations were likely to prove awkward and inconvenient but indicated that the balance of justice required a decision in favour of Ms. Wallace, given that her role was more routine in nature. He accepted that there may be other considerations if the concerns had been raised by someone who occupied a senior management position where trust had irrevocably broken down between the parties.
Full case decision:
http://bit.ly/MhQgK5
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
