The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by special needs assistant Úna Ruffley, finding that the conduct established in her workplace dispute with St Anne’s School did not amount to bullying in law. The Court accepted that the school’s disciplinary procedures were inadequate and could have been declared invalid in proceedings brought for that purpose, but said unfair procedures alone did not establish a bullying claim for damages.
The dispute followed an incident on 14 September 2009, when the school principal found that a sensory-room door had been locked from inside while Ms Ruffley was working there with a pupil. Ms Ruffley said locking the door had been her practice for years, including to prevent pupils entering or leaving the room. She also said other special needs assistants had done the same. The judgment records that the school considered the practice unacceptable for child-protection reasons.
The school’s board later imposed a final-stage, part-four warning, to remain on Ms Ruffley’s file for 18 months. She challenged the process, including the severity of the warning and the failure to give her an opportunity to put her case to the board before it decided on the sanction. The High Court found that the treatment amounted to bullying and awarded damages. A majority of the Court of Appeal overturned that decision.
In the Supreme Court, O’Donnell J. said the board’s original decision-making process was clearly defective: Ms Ruffley should have had the opportunity to present her account and supporting evidence. But the Court distinguished procedural unfairness from the elements of workplace bullying under the definition considered in the case. To qualify, the conduct must be repeated, inappropriate and reasonably capable of undermining dignity at work. A flawed disciplinary process, without more, did not meet that test.
The Supreme Court also rejected a key High Court finding that the principal had almost certainly given the board an untrue and highly biased account. O’Donnell J. said that conclusion was unsupported by the evidence and had not been put to the relevant witnesses. The judgment noted that only four colleagues answered Ms Ruffley’s questionnaire about locking the sensory-room door, and said the evidence did not securely establish a general practice among staff.
The Court dismissed the appeal. It did not make a final decision in this judgment on consequential orders, including whether Ms Ruffley would have to repay the €100,000 paid under a partial stay or pay costs. O’Donnell J. expressed a provisional view that he would be slow to order repayment or costs, and said he was prepared to hear further argument if the parties could not agree.