Assistant film censors seek to prevent dismissal in court

Two women claim Minister for Justice’s decision to terminate their jobs is unlawful

Two assistant censors at the Irish Film Censor’s Office have brought High Court proceedings against the Minister for Justice aimed at preventing their purported dismissal.

Olga Bennett, a former Fianna Fáil senator of Inchicore Road, Dublin 8, and Maireád Marron, Knocksdean Demesne, Swords, Co Dublin, both in their 70s, have sued after the Minister for Justice told them their positions will end on March 31st.

They claim the Minister’s decision to terminate their office is unlawful and has been orchestrated in a “deliberate and cynical” way to remove them without being exposed to any claims.

Ms Bennett receives €2,000 gross a month while Ms Marron says she is paid €1,300 gross for the role.

READ MORE

Marcus Dowling BL, for the plaintiffs, said they had been two of five assistant censors since the mid-1990s and saw “a lot of bad films” before giving them their classification.

His clients had been treated as being self-employed but last year they were informed their remuneration was subject to deductions for PAYE and USC.

They believed this meant they were now employed under a contract of service and the change was part of a Government campaign to deal with so called bogus self-employed arrangements in the Irish economy.

‘Sacked’

Last August, both got letters from the Minister stating all five assistant censor positions were to end on March 31st and a new panel would be set up from which future appointments would be made.

The Minister said, after clarifying the legal position of the status of assistant censors, it was decided all five should be treated the same regardless of their contracts.

Ms Marron and Ms Bennett were on opened-ended contracts while the others were on fixed-term contracts.

The Minister also said that those who wanted to apply for inclusion on the new panel would have to submit an expression of interest.

Counsel said that it appears his clients were being sacked to justify the sacking of the others and this was unfair.

It seemed the March 31st date was chosen to ensure his clients were removed before the 12-month anniversary of their charge of status from self employed to employed when certain employment rights come into being.

They were also unsuccessful in their applications to be on the new panel and were not given reasons for their rejection, he said. Two of the three other assistant censors who reapplied were successful.

In their actions, the plaintiffs want various declarations, including that they hold the office of assistant censor and that the process being used by the Minister is unlawful in absence of a rational reason.

They also intend to ask the High Court for an injunction restraining the Minister for Justice from dismissing them pending the outcome of their action.

Permission to bring the action was granted on an ex parte basis (one side only represented) by Mr Justice Séamus Noonan on Monday. He returned the injunction proceedings to Thursday.