Issue 82 September 2014-2:Layout 1
19/8/14
10:16
Page 5
LEGAL DIARY LEADERSHIP+ The Professional Voice of Principals
After the holidays the SNA was brought to a meeting with the Principal and Chairperson of the BoM to be informed that she was to receive a Final Stage Part 4 warning. This would be on her record for 18 months. CONFLICT The Principal brought matters regarding the SNA to the attention of the BoM. The SNA was not invited to the meeting. The BoM deemed the locking of the door incident unacceptable and that it had implications for Health and Safety and Child Protection. The Principal sought and received the BoM’s support in initiating a written warning and the deferral of an increment. Some members of the BoM wanted the SNA’s immediate dismissal. The first the SNA heard of the BoM’s deliberations was just before the Christmas holidays when the Principal informed her that a final warning would be given to her in January of the New Year. After the holidays the SNA was brought to a meeting with the Principal and Chairperson of the BoM to be informed that she was to receive a Final Stage Part 4 warning. This would be on her record for 18 months. Deferral of an increment was not applicable as there was none payable for the next 3 years in any case. A BoM meeting that evening affirmed the actions of the Chairperson and the Principal. A formal letter was communicated restating the disciplinary conclusion following an ‘investigation’ by the BoM. Letters from the SNA’s solicitor requesting clarification of matters and an apology were sought. It was also emphasised that there was no due process afforded to the SNA. Ultimately proceedings on foot of a bullying claim were initiated. The SNA was absent suffering from work-related stress for 3 ½ years.
WHAT CONSTITUTES WORKPLACE BULLYING? Workplace bullying is defined in the Industrial Relations Act 1990 as follows; “Workplace bullying is repeated in appropriate behaviour, direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical or otherwise, conducted by one
or more persons against another or others, at the place of work and/or in the course of employment, which could be reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual’s right to dignity at work.” The Courts have stated that for a plaintiff to succeed in a claim they must also prove that they suffered damage amounting to personal injury as a result of the employer’s breach of duty. Where personal injury is not of a direct physical kind, it must amount to an ‘identifiable psychiatric injury’.
JUDGEMENT
the SNA’s dignity at work. Evidence of the SNA’s GP and psychiatrist persuaded the Court that she suffered an identifiable psychiatric injury.
OBSERVATION Litigation in schools is unfortunate. In this case the lack of protocol regarding the sensory room coupled with a heavy-handed treatment of the SNA resulted in substantial damages being awarded against the school. The lesson for all of us is that we must have the correct policies in place and afford fair procedures to all employees.
The Court was satisfied that there was inappropriate behaviour on behalf of the BoM which was not an isolated incident.
The Court found that the conjuring up by the Principal of the additional offences of failing to improve during the review process and the alleged falsification of an answer by mistakenly ticking the wrong box in addition to the locking of the door was effectively “trumping up” the charges. The Court noted that the Safety Statement was entirely silent on any health and safety aspects relating to the locking of the Sensory Room door, or to the presence on that door of an internal lock. Whilst the SNA, through her solicitor, did her utmost to pursue her grievances through the internal procedures of the school, the BoM wholly failed to respond to her and left her with no option but to pursue these proceedings. The SNA was not afforded her constitutional right to fairness of procedures and due process. There was no investigation by the BoM. It acted solely on the untrue, highly biased, coloured, and grossly unfair account of events by the Principal. The Court was satisfied that there was inappropriate behaviour on behalf of the BoM which was not an isolated incident but was persistent over a period in excess of one year. This behaviour wholly undermined 5