This case involved an appeal, on a point of law, in respect of a labour court determination. The respondent teacher began working in the appellant school in August 2013 without a written contract and continued to do so until the commencement of the 2015/ 2016 school year. On the 2nd October 2015 she attended an interview within the school and was successful in obtaining a fixed term whole time teacher temporary contract, until the 31st August 2016. She subsequently attended an interview to secure employment for the 2016/ 2017 school year but was unsuccessful. As a consequence, she claimed that she had been unfairly dismissed.

The appellant resisted this claim on the basis that the unfair dismissal legislation did not apply in the circumstances. The adjudication officer agreed with their position, however the Labour Court overturned this on appeal. The Labour Court held that the exclusion provision in the fixed term contract could not be relied upon to prevent the application of the Act, meaning the respondent had been unfairly dismissed when her contract was not renewed.

The appellant claimed that the fixed term contract had been valid and effective, that the Labour Court was wrong to consider the pre- contractual relationship of the parties and that the jurisprudence on waiver of vested rights had been inappropriately applied.

The Court held there was no error in law on the part of the Labour Court in dealing with the totality of the matter. The Court stated that there was no error of law in the Labour Court considering the respondent's employment status prior to the contract in October 2015. The Court noted that the appellant was correct in its assertion that the Labour Court erroneously recorded the continuity of the respondent's employment was not in dispute, based on her permanent employment status prior to the contract of October 2015. However, the Court found that this was not sufficient to vitiate the decision.

The Court indicated that they did not believe that the jurisprudence referenced by the Labour Court had dealt with the appellant's defence to the matter. The Court expressed their view that the jurisprudence in respect of waiver provisions did not appropriately or comprehensively address the arguments raised by the parties as to the exclusion provision in the contract. The Court found that as the appellants were relying on a statutory exclusion provision the Labour Court had ought to deliberate or comment on the implications of such a provision.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that they were not satisfied that the correct principles of law had been applied where there was an absence of engagement with the statutory exclusion provisions, no weight was afforded to same, no explanation was provided regarding the difference between the exclusion and waiver provisions identified by the Labour Court and why, despite their differences, the jurisprudence in respect of waivers was sufficient to resolve the dispute. As a result, the Court remitted the matter to the Labour Court for reconsideration.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/8fd2acd61c65d9d980258275003512fe?OpenDocument