Specific Purpose Contracts : Mount Temple Comprehensive School v Russell

The complainant in this case was first employed in Mount Temple Comprehensive School as a replacement for a teacher on a career break on September 1st, 2002 and his employment ultimately ended on August 31st, 2007.

During this time, he received only one contract in writing, beginning September 1st, 2004 and ending August 31st, 2005.

However, this contract also purported to be extendable to the termination of the career break of the teacher in question, a Mr Vaughan and in effect (although not in writing), the contract was renewed in both September 2005 and 2006.

In March 2007, Mr Vaughan gave notice to the school that he would be resigning with effect from the commencement of the next school year.

The complainant wrote to the school seeking to clarify his position. When he received no reply, he wrote again outlining his belief that he should be appointed to the permanent position vacated by Mr Vaughan.

The Principal of the school spoke to the complainant and advised him that he could not be so appointed and would have to participate in an open competition for the post.

The complainant took issue with this and stated that he believed he was now entitled to a contract of indefinite duration.

Nonetheless, he interviewed for the permanent post in August 2007 but was unsuccessful.

His contract expired at the end of August 2007 and his employment ended.

His claim before a Rights Commissioner to be entitled to a contract of indefinite duration succeeded. Mount Temple appealed this decision to the Court.

The Court noted that Mr Russell was a fixed term employee when the Act came into operation in July 2003 having started with the school on September 1st 2002.

Thus, according to s.9(1) of the Act, when he acquired three years service under a succession of contracts, i.e. on 31st August 2005, he could only be offered one further contract for a maximum duration of 12 months, unless there were objective grounds to justify further renewals as allowed by s.9(4).

It was clear that there had been two such renewals.

However, the Court concluded that it was not seriously disputed that Mr Vaughan’s continued absence on a career break constituted objective grounds as the School had maintained.

Mr Russell however argued that once the objective grounds justifying the renewal of his 2006 -2007 fixed term contract came to an end with the resignation of Mr Vaughan, he became entitled to a contract of indefinite duration and this was the key point that the Court had to resolve.

The Court examined s.9 and found that once the renewal of the contract was lawful at the time it was made, it could not be retrospectively rendered unlawful by an unforeseen event, i.e. the resignation of Mr Vaughan.

The Court therefore held that Mr Russell was not entitled to a contract of indefinite duration and the decision of the Rights Commissioner was overturned.

Nevertheless, it expressed considerable sympathy for Mr Russell’s loss of employment after five years of exemplary service but it stated that it had to interpret the law as it found it.

The Court also stated that if it had had to consider the School’s argument that it could not appoint Mr Russell to a contract of indefinite duration because it was precluded from doing so by the Education Act. It stated it would have rejected this on the basis that the fixed term work directive was superior to any domestic law.

Finally, given the School’s persistent failure to issue fixed term contracts in writing and the reasons for the renewal of such contracts in writing, it suggested that an unfair dismissal claim by the complainant would have been difficult for the School to defend.

More information: FTC/08/7, Determination No. FTD0815, 2008

Email us or call us on +353 1 8666426 to get the best advice available.