Employment status decision fundamentally deficient due to failure to set out relevant facts

Employment law – museum brought an appeal to the High Court from a decision of a social welfare appeals officer that a specialist conservator was in insurable employment – worked 2 and 2.5 days per week – initially employed as temporary technical assistant – continued to work for the museum pursuant to an informal arrangement - employed pursuant to various contracts for services which were expressed to be “a contract for service and not a contract for employment” - rate of pay for these contracts was considerably higher than that which she had earned as an employee – conditions distinct from an employee – museum underwent an overhaul of its procurement procedures – tenders – conservator advised to enter the tender process – she, with others brought a claim under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 – argued that they were entitled to payments from the museum for annual leave and public holidays - had to satisfy the Rights Commissioner that they were employees – argued that she had in fact functioned as an employee - Department of Social Protection’s Code of Practice for determining Employment or Self-Employment Status for Individuals – argued that they complied with each of the criteria for employees contained in the Code – Commissioner satisfied that the mutuality of obligation test, the control test, the integration test and the taxation and VAT positions of the claimants did not provide conclusive indications that the relationship between the claimants and the National Museum was one of employer-employee – determined that as she was not an employee he did not have jurisdiction to hear her claim - appealed the decision of the Rights Commissioner to the Labour Relations Commission – she applied to the SCOPE Section of the Department of Social Protection (“DSP”) for a determination of her employment status - brought a complaint under the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003 on the grounds that her employer “failed to offer a written statement setting out the objective grounds justifying the renewal of a fixed term contract and a failure to offer a contract of indefinite duration” - three separate applications in being relating to her employment status - withdrew her appeal - applied to the DSP for a determination of her employment status so that she could access social welfare payments - DSP determined that she was employed as a member of staff with the applicant and therefore was insurable under the Social Welfare Acts for all benefits and pensions at PRSI Class A - appealed the decision of the Deciding Officer of the SCOPE Section of the DSP – argued that as the Rights Commissioner had made a binding finding of fact regarding the notice party’s employment status, the notice party was estopped from raising the same issue in the Social Welfare Appeals Forum – argument was rejected and decision was upheld – found that she was engaged under a contract of service - appealed to the Chief Appeals Officer but he did not vary the decision – appealed to the High Court on a question of law – conservator’s work with the applicant terminated - standard of review - approach of the High Court - whether the Appeals Officer based the decision on an identifiable error of law or a finding of fact that is not sustainable – museum contends that the earlier decision of the Rights Commissioner determined that the conservator was not an employee and that the matter of issue estoppel thus arises – museum complains about a want of fair procedures and in particular that the Appeals Officer failed to have regard to all of the relevant evidence placed before him; failed in his duty to give reasons for his decision and breached the principle of audi alterem partem by failing to allow the museum address a matter of evidence to which he had material regard in arriving at his decision - application of issue estoppel to decisions of statutory decision making bodies –Court determined that estoppel did not arise - different statutory mechanisms to resolve what are different issues arising from an employer-employee relationship - decision of one decision making body is not binding on the other - employment status of an individual depends on the facts of each particular case - fundamental deficiency in the decision of the Appeals Officer was the failure to set out clearly, or at all, the facts upon which his decision is based – failure to deal with relevant evidence - failure to give reasons - tone of the Appeals Officer’s decision gives the impression that he is seeking to reject the museums claim rather than evaluate same – decision making body has an obligation to outline the facts before him; the disputes in relation to those facts; the reasons why he has preferred the facts advanced by one party, or has come to an interpretation based on those facts; and the weight he has accorded same – conclusions made without any factual or evidential bases - audi alterem partem – museum were not given an opportunity to address a relevant piece of evidence renders the hearing and the subsequent decision unsatisfactory.