This case involved the legal rights and obligations which arise from the unusual triangular arrangement whereby education in Ireland is funded. The fundamental question that arose on the facts concerns the proper legal characterisation of the employment relationship under the Act in circumstances where schools are under the management of management boards but salaries of teachers are paid by the Minister.

The respondent, Ms Boyle, had sought access from the Minister to a pension scheme for national school teachers but was refused on the basis that she was a qualified secondary teacher working as a teacher in a pre-school for children from the traveller community. Ms Boyle brought a complaint to the rights commissioner seeking that the terms and conditions of the scheme be applied to her as she claimed she was being treated less favourably than a comparator. She submitted that her comparator was a full-time employee with the same employer, namely the Minister, but the rights commissioner concluded that the Minister was not Ms Boyle's employer or an associate employer under the Act.

However, the Labour Court agreed with Ms Boyle and reversed the rights commissioner's decision. The Minister then challenged this decision by judicial review and the High Court upheld the Labour Court's decision but remitted the matter to the Labour Court as they did not agree that the Labour Court was empowered to order Ms Boyle's admission to the scheme. This decision was then appealed to the Court of Appeal who agreed with the High Court's decision that the Minister was the employer of Ms Boyle and her comparator. The Court of Appeal concluded that the relationship between the Minister and Ms Boyle gave rise to an implied contract of employment between the parties in relation to pay-related matters.

The Minister was then granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in order to determine if the Minister was said to be Ms Doyle's employer in relation to pay related matters. In a unique set of facts, the school in question was managed by a voluntary management committee which was not a Board of Management and the school was not a national school or a recognised school per the Education Act 1998. The funding for the school was provided by the Minister by means of a grant to assist management committees in engaging staff and Ms Boyle's salary was discharged from this grant and other funds raised through fundraisers. Ms Boyle's salary was not paid directly by the Minister but her annual leave, sick leave etc. were determined in effect by the Department of Education. The Court concluded that there can be no doubt about the triangular relationship which exists between the Minister, a board or committee of management and a teacher which gives rise to difficult questions concerning the proper interpretation of that relationship for legal purposes.

The Court felt that the case comes down to one of deciding whether the Minister is involved in a contract of service with the respondents and in the circumstances the Court was not satisfied that the relationship between the parties can be so characterised. The Court placed emphasis on the fact that Ms Boyle was more remote than most teachers as she was not paid directly by the Minister and her terms and conditions were not wholly governed by the Minister. Accordingly, the Court concluded that that the finding of the Labour Court was wrong in law and allowed the appeal.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/8156757d7a3e9ceb802583380049f989?OpenDocument