Frustration of Contract in Schools

A recent decision of the WRC has reaffirmed the Irish legal position on the doctrine of frustration regarding employment law. The case involved a special needs assistant who failed to present for work over the course of a four month period without prior approval from his employer. The WRC decided that this conduct amounted to an act which frustrated his contract of employment. This ruling is both a helpful restatement of the principles underlining the doctrine of frustration for employers as well as a clarification for educational institutions on the discretion they’re afforded in deciding on career breaks.

The complainant, a special needs assistant (SNA) at the respondent school, made a request for a one-year career break for the following academic year. The school outlined in a letter that the request was brought on by the impending termination of his housing accommodation. He argued that this unforeseen circumstance left him with no alternative but to return to his native country, Spain. The implication of this situation meant that the SNA was not going to be available for work in the following academic year.

Following receipt of the request, the school’s Board of Management (BOM) informed the complainant that it had rejected his request, The BOM relied on Circular Letter 22/2012, which governs the provision of career breaks, as the reason for their decision. The school also had in place a policy that limited providing career breaks to no more than one teacher and one SNA in any given academic year. The school argued that this limitation was fundamental to ensure stability and staffing capacity in the school.

The SNA appealed the BOM’s decision, which, in effect, restated its original basis for the decision. The school also communicated its willingness to engage with the SNA in the future were he to return to Ireland and apply for positions with the school as an SNA. The SNA failed to present to work at the beginning of the following academic year. As a result, the school informed him in December 2023 that it had sourced a replacement for his role. The school noted that the failure to return to work at the beginning of the academic year frustrated the SNA’s contract of employment.

Decision

The WRC reaffirmed that the basis for the doctrine of frustration is when:

“there is a supervening event which must be so unexpected and beyond the contemplation of the parties, even as a possibility, that neither party can be said to have accepted the risk of the event taking place when contracting[1]”.

The WRC further held that this “supervening event” must not have occurred due to the fault of the party asserting frustration. It also held that the event must make the obligations, if performed, radically different from those originally contracted for. It was the view of the WRC that the SNA’s relocation to Spain was an event which met the threshold of this definition.

The WRC also noted that where a contract of employment is frustrated, the employer is not obligated to notify the employee that their contract is at an end. The event of frustration itself is sufficient to trigger the termination of the contract. In other words, an employer is not obliged to stand idly by, to the detriment of their business, where an employee conveys no prospect of performing their contractual obligations. In addition, this ruling also establishes that career breaks are not contractual entitlements and their granting is ultimately at the discretion of the employer.

Conclusion

An employee’s disagreement with a decision of their employer is not sufficient grounds to refrain from the performance of their contractual obligations. Is it also not a legal basis to sidestep the concept of frustration under the guise of an unfair dismissal claim. The WRC ruling in this case will be welcome for employers in the education space who are tasked with making tough decisions on career break requests. It will also serve as reassurance that action can be taken swiftly to mitigate the fall-out from an employee’s contract being frustrated.

For more information and expert advice, contact a member of our Education Law team.

The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.

[1] Redmond on Dismissal Law