Blackrock College -v- Browne [2013] IEHC 607 (20 December 2013)

Blackrock College -v- Browne [2013] IEHC 607 (20 December 2013)

The Labour Court erred in law by permitting the respondent to use a Department-funded full-time teacher as a comparator. The correct legal test, as established in CUS, is that the employer for the purposes of the Act is the party paying the worker. The FEMPI legislation did not alter the essential employer-employee relationship, as the school remained the paymaster and determinant of the respondent's terms and conditions. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to choose a Department-funded teacher as a comparator.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 607
Parties
Appellant: Blackrock College; Respondent: Mary Browne
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
20 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal / High Court Appeal From Labour Court Determination
Outcome
Labour Court determination set aside; appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Part Time Work, Comparators in Employment, Protection of Employees (part Time Work) Act 2001, Objective Justification for Less Favourable Treatment
Employment Law Labour Law Part Time Work Comparators in Employment Protection of Employees (part Time Work) Act 2001 Objective Justification for Less Favourable Treatment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blackrock College

Appellant

Mary Browne

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal / High Court Appeal From Labour Court Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a privately paid part-time teacher can use a Department-funded full-time teacher as a comparator under the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court erred in law in its determination of the appropriate comparator
  3. 3 Whether FEMPI legislation altered the employer-employee relationship relevant to the comparator analysis

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court erred in law by permitting the respondent to use a Department-funded full-time teacher as a comparator. The correct legal test, as established in CUS, is that the employer for the purposes of the Act is the party paying the worker. The FEMPI legislation did not alter the essential employer-employee relationship, as the school remained the paymaster and determinant of the respondent's terms and conditions. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to choose a Department-funded teacher as a comparator.

Court Disposition

Labour Court determination set aside; appeal allowed

Orders

  • The determination of the Labour Court dated 18 July 2012 is set aside on the basis of error of law.