Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this matter. It relates to Ms Margaret Moran, a constituent of mine who has been treated disgracefully by the Department of Education and Science. She was employed in St. Catherine's College of Education for Home Economics, Sion Hill, Blackrock, County Dublin on a part-time casual basis from 1989 to 2000. In 2000 she was appointed to the position of lecturer in a whole-time temporary capacity on a one-year contract, followed by a three-year contract until 2004. In 2004 she was denied a so-called contract of indefinite duration, to which she expected to be entitled. The ground cited for not granting her this contract was the forthcoming closure of the college in 2007. As a consequence, she received a further three one-year contracts until the closure of the college in 2007. She was appointed to the position of acting head of the home economics department of the college in 2004 and was responsible for the successful running of this department during a very difficult wind-down period. Ultimately, she had seven years of continuous service in the college.

Personnel in the Department of Education and Science showed no interest in finding further employment for those employees, including Margaret Moran, who were employed in a whole-time temporary capacity, despite numerous requests and a desire to be employed in the education sector. They were treated badly and discriminated against in the context of the arrangements made for those losing their employment following the closure of the college. Several options were put in place for permanent staff, including redeployment, voluntary early retirement and a voluntary redundancy package consisting of statutory entitlements and an ex gratia lump sum. Ms Moran, however, was offered only statutory redundancy.

With assistance from her union, Ms Moran brought a claim to the Rights Commissioner Service under the Protection of Employees (Fixed Term Work) Act 2003. The first hearing place took place in December 2007. Further adjournments and hearings took place until August 2008 when the Rights Commissioner Service issued its decision that Ms Moran had been treated less fairly than her permanent colleagues and that she should be entitled to the same severance package as those colleagues. Essentially, the conclusion was that she had been discriminated against.

An appeal was lodged by the Department of Education and Science to the Labour Court against the decision of the Rights Commissioner Service. This appeal was finally determined on 10 December 2008. The court concluded that it was satisfied Ms Moran had been discriminated against and that she was entitled to similar terms to those available to permanent employees. The court was further satisfied that the complainant had suffered "inconvenience and expense" in pursuing her complaint and that the value of the severance gratuity to which she was entitled had been "eroded by the passage of time". It made an award of monetary compensation to mark the fact that she had been denied her right to equal treatment. The court expressly directed that the Department offer her the option of a severance gratuity calculated on the basis of six weeks' pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory entitlement, or an immediate pension and lump sum based on actual pensionable service plus purchased nominal service, as applicable, but without an entitlement to added years.

Exactly four months later the decision of the Labour Court on 10 December 2008 to award Ms Moran who gave substantial service in the education sector the compensation and payments to which she was entitled on loss of her job has not been implemented. I asked the Minister about the matter in a parliamentary question on 31 March. His response consisted of a mere two sentences:

My Department, in consultation with the Department of Finance, is currently considering the implementation of the Labour Court determination in this case, including any wider implications of the determination. I hope to be in a position to finalise this consideration shortly.

The Labour Court and the Rights Commissioner Service form part of a structure put in place by the State to facilitate the resolution of labour relations difficulties and ensure those employed in the education sector and other areas are properly treated in their employment and not discriminated against. However, the Department of Education and Science has fought the individual in question through the Rights Commissioner Service and the Labour Court. The latter confirmed the decision of the former and that confirmation occurred four months ago. The life of the individual in question has been put on hold in circumstances in which a substantial payment to which she is entitled is being unlawfully withheld by the State. In the eyes of the Department, she is seen as one individual, only a small cog in a big wheel. However, it has not only a legal but a moral obligation to make the payments to which the Labour Court has determined she is entitled. It is a gross abuse of her civil rights as a citizen of the State that, having used the procedures of the State to seek to have her claims properly adjudicated upon, which process she initiated in December 2007, it has taken one and a quarter years to process her application and have it properly determined.

It is entirely unacceptable that a person who has done the State some service has effectively been abandoned. The reply I received from the Minister on the matter was disgraceful, simply stating he was considering the decision, as was the Department of Finance, and that at some unspecified date, they might or might not abide by the Labour Court's ruling. I demand that they do so and that they do my constituent the courtesy within the next seven days of confirming that they will abide by the ruling and will make the payments to which she is entitled.

See this speech in context