Blog Layout

Acting Up - Considerations under Employment Law


Introduction

An interesting case was recently decided by the Labour Court which spoke to some of the criteria to be examined when assessing the legal characterisation of an employee ‘acting-up’ or occupying some temporary interim role.

This case came before the Labour Court on appeal of a decision of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) against Mr. Power, who had made a complaint against the HSE, which had failed. 

Mr. Power asserted that the HSE had breached the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003 by returning him to his role as Chief Financial Officer of the Saolta University Healthcare Group, having ‘acted-up’ for a not inconsiderable period, as Group Chief Executive Officer. 

Background

Mr. Power had been employed by the HSE as a permanent pensionable employee since July 1999. He was appointed as the Chief Financial Officer of the Saolta University Healthcare Group, a unit of the HSE, in January 2012 and occupied that role at the date of the hearing of the Labour Court.

Mr. Power, at the invitation of the HSE, took up the role of Interim Group Chief Executive, Saolta University Healthcare Group in October 2014. The HSE noted that the appointment would be temporary, until March 2015, or until the role was filled on a permanent basis, whichever occurred sooner. Mr. Power was also advised that when his temporary role as Group Chief Executive ceased, he would revert to his ‘substantive terms and conditions as a permanent employee of the Health Service Executive’.

This ‘temporary role’ was extended on several occasions. 

In September 2018, the post of Group Chief Executive for a five-year term was advertised in a competition administered by the Public Appointments Service on behalf of the HSE. Mr. Power was an unsuccessful candidate in that competition.

Mr. Power resumed his position as Chief Financial Officer of the Saolta Group in September 2019.

Relevant Law

The Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003 transposes Council Directive No. 1999/70/EC into Irish law.

The term "fixed-term worker" means a person having an employment contract or relationship entered into directly between an employer and a worker where the end of the employment contract or relationship is determined by objective conditions such as reaching a specific date, completing a specific task, or the occurrence of a specific event.

The Act transposed the Directive and, at Section 1, defines as follows:

• “fixed-term employee” means a person having a contract of employment entered into directly with an employer where the end of the contract of employment concerned is determined by an objective condition such as arriving at a specific date, completing a specific task or the occurrence of a specific event ….”

• “permanent employee” means an employee who is not a fixed-term employee.

Mr. Power has based his complaint on the definition of successive fixed-term contracts, at Section 9, which provides as follows:

9.(1) Subject to subsection (4), where on or after the passing of this Act a fixed-term employee completes or has completed his or her third year of continuous employment with his or her employer or associated employer, his or her fixed-term contract may be renewed by that employer on only one occasion and any such renewal shall be for a fixed term of no longer than one year.

(2) Subject to subsection (4), where after the passing of this Act a fixed-term employee is employed by his or her employer or associated employer on two or more continuous fixed-term contracts and the date of the first such contract is subsequent to the date on which this Act is passed, the aggregate duration of such contracts shall not exceed 4 years.

In Railway Procurement Agency and Allan Bell & others, [FTD097] the Labour Court stated:

the protection of the Act is conferred solely on fixed-term employees and a complaint under the Act can only be entertained if it relates to a period of fixed-term employment."

In Kelly v Louth Council [FTD1320] the Labour Court stated:

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complainant was at all times a permanent employee of the HSE Council. In order to come within the ambit of the Act a Complainant must have the status of a fixed term worker. The Court interprets that to mean that a Complainant’s employment must be coterminous with the expiry of a fixed term or fixed purpose contract of employment. A complainant who reverts to their substantive grade and whose employment continues at the end of a fixed term assignment does not enjoy the protection of the Act.

Decision

The Labour Court concluded that at all material times Mr. Power was employed as a permanent employee, employed on a contract of employment of indefinite duration by the HSE. The Labour Court thereby concluded that Mr. Power did not have the standing to maintain his appeal. The Labour Court noted that Mr. Powers’ link with his employer is, self-evidently, the permanent employment relationship created and maintained by the contract of employment entered into by him and the HSE prior to his taking up an appointment on a fixed term basis as interim Group Chief Executive and under the terms of which contract he returned to the role of Chief Financial Officer in 2019. That conclusion is all the more inescapable having regard to the fact that Mr. Powers’ employment was at no time at risk arising from the termination of his fixed term appointment to the role of interim Group Chief Executive.

Share

Compensation for workplace stress & anxiety
by RG343171 11 Mar, 2024
Psychological damage is difficult to measure and quantify, making it difficult for assessors to determine its impact. The Personal Injuries Guidelines were established by the Judicial Council in 2021 under the Judicial Council Act 2019 to identify appropriate levels of damages for different forms of personal injuries. The guidelines aim to enhance understanding of the evaluation and allocation of compensation for personal injuries to achieve more uniformity in awards.
How much compensation for stress at work?
by RG343171 11 Mar, 2024
In this article, we examine the circumstances that give rise to a personal injuries claim for the stress and anxiety caused by a toxic working environment.
13 Feb, 2024
The case of Electricity Supply Board -v- Kieran Sharkey [2024] IEHC 65 examines whether an employee has a right to silence in the context of workplace investigations. The Electricity Supply Board (ESB) (the Plaintiff) brought a case against Mr Sharkey (the Defendant) alleging that his failure to answer certain questions, in the context of a workplace investigations that was also subject to parallel criminal proceedings, amounted to a repudiation of his contract of employment or, in the alternative, that the ESB was entitled to treat his contract of employment as having been terminated by him.
Section 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999
26 Jan, 2024
The Form 3 is used when an individual wants to make a representation to the Minister for Justice and Equality pursuant to Section 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999. It is an appeal to a decision of the Minister for Justice in respect of an immigration application.
Determining an Employer
03 Jan, 2024
The case of Amanda Craddock v Head–Hunt International Limited (ADJ00036831) examines the circumstances under which a redundancy payment would ordinarily be payable to an agency worker.
Claims before the WRC
18 Dec, 2023
In this article, we consider what will be considered frivolous or vexatious, by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), when a complaint is presented to them we do so by examining several claims initiated by Mr. Leon O’Connor against various companies.
Show More
Share by: