Head denies vendetta against teacher
The head of a leading Northern Ireland grammar school today rejected claims he carried out a vendetta to drive a teacher from his job.
James McBain, principal of Omagh Academy, giving evidence before an industrial tribunal in Belfast, denied he encouraged his heads of department to complain about the work of staff member John Montgomery.
Mr Montgomery, 44, a former technology and design teacher at the school, has alleged constructive dismissal, claiming Mr McBain masterminded a plot to have him removed.
But the headmaster told the tribunal: “There was no conspiracy. There was no question of getting at anybody.”
Mr McBain said concerns about Mr Montgomery began soon after he joined the staff in the 1997/98 academic year.
“In the months that followed other bits of evidence came along. It began to accumulate into a body of concern,” he added.
Eventually, the principal went to the Board of Governors to ask them to initiate formal procedures to assess and monitor Mr Montgomery’s competence.
During his evidence, the teacher, who resigned in December 2002, claimed that his actions had a predetermined outcome to remove him from his post.
But Mr McBain firmly rejected this: “Mr Montgomery had every opportunity in the months that led to the initiation of this procedure to take steps that would not have made this a requirement for me.”
He gave a number of examples where senior teachers had complained about Mr Montgomery’s work.
In one instance, the head of computer studies pointed out that students in Mr Montgomery’s IT class had not received accreditation for course work because it had not been completed in time.
In another example a class was not able to undertake an end of term exam because they were three weeks behind in their work.
Mr McBain said the former teacher had engaged enthusiastically in extra-curricular activities such as music and drama.
“If the quality of work he was doing in the extra curricular field had been brought to the curricular field we would not be in the position we are in today,” he added.
The principal said Mr Montgomery appeared unable or unwilling to follow schemes of work set out by the heads of departments.
“I didn’t go looking for these complaints. They arrived on my desk. All my dealings with Mr Montgomery had been responsive.”
The hearing continues tomorrow.
