The High Court has refused a teacher’s application for judicial review of a written warning issued by the board of management of St. Dominick’s Secondary School Cabra, ruling that the employment dispute did not have the public law element required for that remedy.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Michael Peart on 14 April 2005, concerned Mary Becker, who had taught at the school for 25 years. She sought an order of certiorari to quash the board’s decision to issue the warning after a colleague complained of repeated harassment under the school’s Professional Charter and Policy on Dignity in the Workplace.
Becker denied the allegations. She challenged the process, including the use of the Charter’s formal procedure and the board’s involvement in investigating the complaint. The judgment recounts her claims that the school bypassed an informal stage and that procedures from the Charter and the JMB/ASTI arrangements were being combined. The judge noted ambiguity about which procedures the school had adopted, but did not decide those procedural complaints.
The board had found the complaint “in general, well-founded” and issued a formal warning on 29 April 2003. The warning told Becker not to harass the complainant or other staff and said further disciplinary action, potentially including dismissal, could follow. The judge said the merits of the dispute were not before him at this stage.
Becker argued that the school’s statutory role, public funding and responsibilities under the Education Act 1998 made the decision reviewable. The board maintained that the dispute arose from the parties’ employment contract and belonged in private law.
The court distinguished the public functions involved in providing education from a school’s private functions as an employer. It held that the statutory framework and the public importance of education did not, by themselves, make a disciplinary decision about a teacher amenable to judicial review. The judge said a dispute over hiring, dismissal or discipline would ordinarily require a private law remedy unless a particular public law element was present.
The court refused the application for the orders sought. It did not rule on whether the allegations were true or whether the warning was justified, and, having decided the judicial review issue, did not consider the applicant’s other submissions.