A High Court judge yesterday quashed a decision of the Minister for Agriculture removing a former general secretary of the trade union IMPACT from a senior post in the training unit of the Department of Agriculture.
In a reserved judgment on proceedings taken by Mr Liam McCormack against the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Justice O'Donovan found that the Minister, when considering whether to remove Mr McCormack from his post as district superintendent (DS) in the training unit, was required to act judicially and to observe fair procedures.
By failing to advise Mr McCormack that his post was in jeopardy and by failing to give him an opportunity to argue against his removal, the Minister did not act judicially and failed to comply with the requirements of natural justice. He did not accept that Mr McCormack's membership of IMPACT disentitled him to that opportunity.
The judge issued an order quashing the Minister's decision, in a letter of April 10th, 1997, to remove Mr McCormack from his post. He also granted a declaration that the Minister was performing a quasi-judicial function in purporting to remove Mr McCormack from his post, and was required to act in accordance with the principles of natural and constitutional justice.
He refused to grant other reliefs sought by Mr McCormack, including declarations that the purported removal from the post in the training unit was invalid, that the Minister was not entitled to unilaterally vary Mr McCormack's conditions of service and that he continued to be the lawful incumbent of the post.
He said the removal did not involve any alteration in Mr McCormack's grade of seniority in the Department and he was satisfied it was not a demotion. He believed the action was motivated more by Mr McCormack's failure to secure promotion to the post of area superintendent in the unit and the unavailability of another post than by his removal from the post of DS.
Mr McCormack was seconded from the Department to the IMPACT trade union between 1989 and 1994. He remains in the employment of the Department of Agriculture.
The judge said he was not persuaded that the circumstances surrounding Mr McCormack's appointment to the post of DS were such that it was implicit the appointment to the post was permanent.
He did not regard the decision to remove Mr McCormack from his post as DS as arbitrary or capricious, but said it was a pragmatic decision based on the reality that, following an agreement lawfully entered into, an AS should be assigned to that unit and the position of a DS there was redundant.
But, nonetheless, Mr McCormack had given every satisfaction in performing his duties and had been given assurances that proposed restructuring would not affect his position in the unit. He was entitled to be notified that there was a real possibility he would lose his post as DS and to be given the opportunity to argue against that.
