The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a school principal, who has not worked as a principal for some 24 years but has continued to be paid, was entitled to payment of her salary to date.
However, it also reiterated a previous Supreme Court finding that Ms Lucy Carr could effectively be made redundant under the Vocational Education Act 1930.
The five-judge court upheld a High Court decision of August 1999 in favour of Ms Carr and dismissed an appeal by the Minister for Education and the VEC.
The President of the High Court had granted Ms Carr, of Russell Road, Mungret, Co Limerick, orders quashing decisions of the respondents of November 27th, 1997 suspending payment of her salary as an officer of the VEC, and directed the payment of all arrears due to her.
Delivering the Supreme Court's reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Geoghegan noted that Ms Carr was appointed principal of St Anne's post-primary school, George's Quay, Limerick, by the City of Limerick VEC in November 1970. The school was permanently closed by the VEC in 1976, but before the closure Ms Carr had been suspended.
There was an inquiry by the Minister for Education. The suspension was later terminated and she was paid remuneration which had been withheld from her.
However, the VEC failed to reinstate her and she took legal proceedings.
The Supreme Court found that, under Ms Carr's contract, the VEC had either to employ her as principal of the school to which she was initially appointed, or employ her as principal of another school within its jurisdiction.
If the VEC could not offer her an equivalent post, with the consent of the Minister for Education she could be made redundant.
Following that decision, the VEC reviewed the position and letters were exchanged with the Minister for Education. The Minister decided the VEC should seek an "agreed solution" with Ms Carr.
In the meantime, the VEC had written to Ms Carr warning her of its decision to consider removing her from office and inviting her to make representations. Ms Carr had ignored all overtures regarding negotiations with a facilitator, Mr Jack Marrinan.
He had concluded in a report of March 1997 that nothing could be done without her co-operation and that was never likely to be forthcoming.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said further letters from the Department to Ms Carr were ignored and, in November 1997, payment of Ms Carr's salary was suspended until she agreed to enter into meaningful discussions.
Her solicitors responded that the Minister had no power to suspend her salary and took legal proceedings.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said there was no doubt that Section 7 of the Vocational Education (Amendment) Act 1944 conferred no power on the Minister to do what he did in suspending Ms Carr's salary.
While it was open to argument that the court should imply a term in the contract of employment between the VEC and Ms Carr requiring reasonable openness to negotiation, it was not desirable for the court to succumb to that temptation, the judge added. It was of paramount importance that the court should vindicate Ms Carr in her correct claim that the Minister had acted outside the 1944 Act.
However, he added, he saw no reason why the VEC would be precluded from suing Ms Carr in the ordinary civil courts for breach of contract. It was also open to the committee to consider whether it might be entitled to withhold future salary.