The High Court has ruled the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) must reconsider a finding concerning accrued leave entitlements of nine teachers who had notified their schools of their pregnancies before leave entitlements changed.
The tribunal held last year the nine were not obliged to take leave accruing to them during their maternity leave during school closure periods rather than term time.
The Minister for Education claimed the EAT erred in law because there was no evidence to support the finding that the effect of a 2013 circular on maternity leave was to end any entitlement of teachers to time in lieu of holidays accrued during maternity leave.
Ms Justice Niamh Hyland found the EAT had erred and sent the matter back for reconsideration by a newly constituted tribunal.
The nine teachers, from eight primary schools, objected to the change brought in by the 2013 circular saying it was introduced when all of them were already pregnant and had notified their schools of their pregnancy.
They argued their rights existing under a previous circular, in 2011, that allowed such leave to be taken during term time, could not be removed by the 2013 circular. This was because they had an expectation their maternity leave for the extant pregnancies would be governed by the 2011 circular.
They brought a complaint to a Rights Commissioner who rejected it. They successfully appealed to the EAT on the basis the new arrangement introduced by the 2013 circular constituted a breach of the Maternity Protection Act 1994.
The Minister, who took over the proceedings from the eight school boards of management, appealed that decision to the High Court on a point of law.
The Minister said the correct interpretation of the Maternity Protection Act was that all periods of school closure – summer, Christmas, Easter, mid-term and other one-day holidays – qualify as “other leave (including sick leave or annual leave) to which the employee concerned is entitled” for the purpose of the relevant part of the Act (section 22.4).
Ms Justice Hyland said three EU directives governing maternity leave, working time and equal treatment were found by the EU Court of Justice to mean a worker could take her annual leave during a period other than the period of her maternity leave, irrespective of when the collective agreement dictated leave should be taken.
The judge found the determination section of the EAT decision was “very hard to decipher”.
It was devoid of reasons to explain its conclusion that the 2013 circular is in breach of the Maternity Protection Act and of what is known as the EU Pregnancy Directive, she said.
There was no element in the EAT decision identifying “even glancingly” the requisite factual context of the dispute or the legal basis necessary to ground a conclusion on the basis of the legitimate expectation argument.
If the EAT’s justification for finding the 2013 circular unlawful was because requiring accumulated leave to be taken during school closure days meant the Maternity Protection Act would inevitably be breached, she was satisfied this was an error of law.
The lack of reasons provided by the EAT, even bare reasons that simply communicated the gist of its decision, prevented her from potentially concluding there was indeed a lawful basis for its decision.
While the teachers argued the decision should be remitted to the EAT if the court quashed the decision, the Minister had argued that it should be quashed and the original Rights Commissioner’s decision should stand.
The judge was satisfied that the matter should be sent back for reconsideration to the EAT, or whatever composition is in place because, since this case was taken, the EAT has been in wind-down. The Labour Court has since become the single workplace body for appeals.