The High Court has ruled a change in maternity leave entitlements, as it affected nine teachers who had already notified their schools of their pregnancies, should be reconsidered.
An Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) last year found the teachers were not obliged to take leave accruing to them while on their maternity leave during school closure periods rather than during 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. They said it was introduced when all of them were already pregnant and had notified their schools of their pregnancy.
Term time
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 that 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.
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".
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.
