The issue of fixed term workers and NUI Maynooth seem to run side by side when it comes to Contracts of Employment. Perhaps one of the most famous fixed term workers cases relates to a former employee of the University where in the case of Buckley v. NUI Maynooth the tribunal gave very clear instruction as to what must be included in a Fixed Term Contract in order to justify it carrying on longer than the recommended 4 year period.
To outline this, the Fixed Term Workers legislation provides that where an employer wants to put an employee on rolling/successive fixed term contracts, they cannot do so for more than a total of 4 years at which point they would need to offer them a contract of indefinite duration or provide an objective justification for keeping them on fixed term contracts. In this case the Employer argued that the role was subject to funding that was renewed year on year so they had to keep offering fixed term contracts as opposed to a contract of indefinite duration.
The Tribunal commented that in order to justify this the contract must state the exact nature, duration and purpose of the funding, along with the funding dates to show that the entire contract is subject to this funding. However it also concluded that this subject to funding caveat must be included in all of the contracts not just the ones that occur after the 4 years has elapsed. The reason being the Tribunal is requiring an employer to nail their colours to the mast at this point and commit that this contract is subject to funding, and avoid the propensity for fixed term contracts to be used as a trial period for new employees.
Dr. O'Keefe & Dr. Benson
In two recent cases (FTD 1411, FTD 1412) National University of Ireland v Dr. O'Keefe & Dr. Benson both employees had won their respective cases at rights commissioner where they stated that they should have been on contracts of indefinite duration and not fixed term, and these decisions were subsequently appealed to the Labour Court.
In these cases NUI Maynooth were successful in overturning the case of Dr. O'Keefe as she was employed to cover members of staff on sabbatical leave, and was for the purpose of replacing a certain staff member. However the court also made comment that the University was somewhat careless in administering this contract as they just issued a standard template instead of putting together a bespoke justification letter, as required by Section 8 (2) of the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Worker) Act, 2003. This requires an employer to commit to writing the reasons for any renewal of a fixed term contract.
In the second case, Dr. Benson, the Tribunal upheld the original decision and found that the University had not put any reason in the contract why the fixed term contract was being renewed instead of a contract of indefinite duration issued. The employee was filling in for a colleague who was transferred out of the department to work on a separate project. the Tribunal found there was no discernible connection between the fixed term contract and that of her colleague being placed on a separate project and found in favour of the employee.
Notes for Employers
- Fixed term contracts should only be used where a role is purpose or time limited
- They are not a mechanism for trialing an employee
- Fixed term contracts must state an end date or an event on which the contract will come to an end
- If renewing a fixed term contract an employer is required to commit to writing the reasons for doing so and not issuing a contract of indefinite duration
- Employers must be able to objectively justify why a contract would be needed on a fixed term basis beyond four years
- Always ensure there is a clear paper trail detailing all the contracts and reasons for them
Further Reading
