EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
APPEAL OF: CASE NO.
EMPLOYEE - appellant UD1910/2011
against the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in the case of:
EMPLOYER - respondent
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr M. Gilvarry
Members: Mr. D. Morrison
Ms. A. Moore
heard this appeal at Sligo on 16th April 2013.
Representation:
Appellant:
Respondent:
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:-
This case came before the Tribunal by way of an appeal by an employee against a decision of the Rights Commissioner under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 reference r-103885-UD-11/SR.
Summary of Evidence
The claimant was employed by the respondent for four years and on the fifth year her contract was not renewed denying a contract of indefinite duration.
The former principal of the respondent gave evidence of being funded by the Department of Education and set out how funding was allocated each year. Teacher allocation is decided by the number of pupils attending with provision for a principle, a vice principal and a career guidance position. The claimant was employed from September 2006 on a fixed term contract to cover the absence of another employee on secondment. This fixed term contract was renewed in 2007, 2008 and 2009 to cover that same absence. In 2010 the employee whom the claimant was covering for decided to retire. At that time the respondent was over its quota of teachers as set out by the Department of Education. The board of management could not advertise the position and informed the claimant on the 31st May 2010. The claimant sought a contract of indefinite duration in June 2010 and the board of management decided they could not award such a contract. The witness denied that a Department circular was breached by the respondent when they appointed an unqualified guidance teacher to the post which the claimant had previously filled. The witness explained the guidance post was filled by a teacher half way through the post graduate course in guidance and was authorised by a named official in the Department of Education. He also denied the circular was breached to deliberately avoid awarding the claimant a contract of indefinite duration. The witness was unable to provide any documentary evidence of attempting to secure any concessionary guidance hours from the Department of Education for the years 2010 to 2011.
The claimant, an English teacher and qualified guidance counsellor having ten years guidance experience in 2010 outlined the details of her employment with the respondent. She was aware the respondent’s pupil numbers entitled them to a guidance counsellor. On returning from maternity leave in May 2010 she was handed a letter advising her that the person she was providing cover for was retiring and that her contract would terminate. She recalled being told that he had talked to the Department and that was the position. Having no prior knowledge the respondent announced at a staff meeting that her contract was terminating causing her humiliation among her colleagues. The explanation given that the respondent was over quota and could not award her a further contract is not accepted as the position of guidance counsellor is not included in the overall teacher numbers. Teaching posts were advertised by the respondent including an English teacher post following her contract being terminated. In a school with over five hundred pupils the respondent was entitled to a guidance counsellor post.
Determination
The Tribunal carefully considered the evidence in this case and the submissions made.
The Tribunal is a creature of statute and its only powers are conferred by statute.
In this case the Tribunal had considerable sympathy for the appellant and felt she deserved better treatment than was afforded her by the respondent.
However, the Tribunal is constrained by statute, and the respondent has adhered to the letter of the law, if not its spirit, in dealing with the appellant.
In this case the appellant was employed for a specified purpose and that purpose was completed. In such circumstances, the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 Section 2 ( 2) (b) shall not apply if
(i) The contract is in writing
(ii) It was signed by both parties
(iii) It contains a statement that the Act shall not apply to a dismissal consisting only of the expiry or cesser as aforesaid.
As all these conditions are fulfilled, the Tribunal finds that the appellant’s appeal fails under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007 and is hereby dismissed.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)