School principal breaks down in tears after winning case over dismissal decision
A primary school principal broke down in tears after winning her High Court challenge to her dismissal arising from allegations by a special needs assistant of inappropriate behaviour towards two young pupils.
The principal, who strongly denied the allegations, was entitled to be given adequate reasons by the school board of management (BOM) for dismissing her last year but got none beyond being effectively told in a letter of dismissal "we did not believe you, therefore you are being dismissed", Mr Justice Anthony Barr said.
He outlined the principal was dismissed after an investigation process put in place by the BOM involving an independent expert report and a six and a half hour disciplinary hearing before the BOM before the five BOM members eligible to vote unanimously voted for dismissal.
The judge said there was no evidence of any consideration by the BOM as a whole of the evidence put before it and the principal was not told whether all the allegations against her were deemed to have been proven or, if not, which of the allegations had been found against her, he said.
The dismissal letter refered to one BOM voter saying he voted for dismissal after listening to the evidence and "because the childen in case have blossomed since".
That was "irrelevant and irrational" and the other reasons given were "equally deficient", he said.
While having considerable sympathy for the BOM members as lay people probably without legal or adjudicatory experience, they were required to, and capable of, giving reasons beyond the "extremely short and vague" letter dismissing her from a post she had held for some 20 years. The dismissal had "profound" consequences financially and for her standing in her community.
This case concerned only the legality of the process leading to dismissal, he stressed.
The process adopted by the BOM, and its later rejection of a recommendation by a Disciplinary Appeals Board (DAB) that the principal be immediately reinstated, were not good at law, he ruled.
The case arose after a SNA made 17 allegations in spring 2016 concerning the principal’s treatment of child A, a four year old girl, and six allegations regarding her treatment of child B, a nine year old boy.
They included claims the principal had “hurt” Child A over a 30 minute period, caused red weals to appear on one of child A’s wrists, “chunks” to be taken out of her hands and making her stand for periods during her lunch breaks.
The principal denied the claims and she and another teacher said child A was prone to saying she was “hurt” when she did not want to do something. The principal also said the SNA was not present during the 30 minute period and another teacher had said she saw no incident of hurting.
In relation to child B, it was alleged the principal treated him very unfairly, made him do work inappropriate to his age and educational status, and made derogatory comments about him, including telling another child to eat up their lunch or child B - who was obese - would eat it. She denied those claims.
The allegations prompted an investigation by the BOM and were also referred to Tusla and the principal was put on administrative leave. Tusla informed the BOM later in 2016 it saw no need to involve its social work department in the matter.
The BOM continued with its own investigation and a disciplinary hearing, leading to dismissal in early 2018.
The principal successfully appealed the dismissal to a DAB but the BOM declined to follow its recommendation to immediately reinstate her and instead confirmed the dismissal.
In judicial review proceedings, the principal, represented by Peter Ward SC and Maireád McKenna BL, argued the investigation process, and the BOM’s rejection of the DAP’s recommendation, was fundamentally flawed.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Barr said, up to and including the disciplinary hearing before the BOM in early 2018, the BOM and its chairperson had acted in a “fair and exemplary” manner.
While it was a "significant" fact Tusla had found nothing in its investigation, that did not absolve the BOM from investigating the allegations by the SNA, he said.
A six and a half hour disciplinary hearing before the BOM in 2018 was conducted in an "exemplary" manner and included the principal reading a statement over two and a half hours and her cross-examination of the SNA, he said.
However, there was “simply no evidence” the BOM had engaged with and evaluated the evidence against the principal, her response or the supporting evidence she had called, he said.
The dismissal decision must be quashed because it failed to set out adequate reasons for dismissal, he ruled.
The matter was adjourned to December 11th for formal orders.
By court order, none of the parties can be identified.
