Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Minister for Education was not the employer of a teacher in a grant-funded pre-school
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court allows appeal from Court of Appeal, and determines that, arising from a judicial review of a decision of the Labour Court, the Minister for Education was not the employer of a qualified secondary teacher working part-time in a pre-school facility, on the grounds that: (a) there was no contract of service between the Minister and the teacher, in that she did not provide any service to the Minister under the alleged contract; (b) the teacher was not paid directly by the Minister, but out of a grant paid to the school, which said school was capable of implementing different pension arrangements for teachers under the legislation.
Clarke CJ (nem diss): Education - funding of education - triangular or tripartite arrangement - management of school by boards - payment of teachers by Minister - whether Minister was the employer of a teacher - Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001 - history of proceedings - application by teacher for National School Teachers’ Superannuation Scheme - pension benefits - application refused because she was a qualified secondary teacher working in a pre-school for children from travelling community - complaint to rights commissioner - appeal to Labour Court - judicial review - appeal to Court of Appeal - leave to appeal to Supreme Court - whether in circumstances of the case the Minister was the teacher's employer in relation to pay-related matters - Directive 97/81/EC - whether teacher could be said to have a contract of service with the Minister - definition of 'contract of employment' - distinction between 2001 Act and the Payment of Wages Act 1991 - extent to which teacher had an obligation to the Minister under the alleged contract.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
