The Supreme Court found that the disciplinary process against special needs assistant Úna Ruffley was unfair and mishandled, but did not amount to workplace bullying. It said the conduct fell short of the high threshold for a bullying claim and could not support damages. The final order and costs were left for separate consideration.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Peter Charleton on 26 May 2017, concerned the school’s response to an incident on 14 September 2009. Ruffley had locked a room while inside with a child, whom she was concerned might run out. The judgment said the practice was contrary to school policy, which was not well publicised, and that other staff had also locked themselves in rooms with children.
Justice Charleton said the school should have stopped disciplinary action once a survey showed the practice was not unique to Ruffley. The school should instead have acknowledged the wider practice and made clear it had to stop. The judgment described the authorities’ continued disciplinary action as unfair and said the process went wrong because the school failed to rethink its position.
The court distinguished that failure from bullying. It said there was no distinctive tort of bullying or harassment and that a workplace bullying claim requires repeated conduct that objectively undermines dignity at work and meets a demanding threshold. The court described the school’s conduct as a disciplinary process that had gone wrong, not conduct at the extreme and repetitive level required for bullying.
Justice Charleton acknowledged the emotional distress caused to Ruffley and said the school should acknowledge its fault. He also said she should be encouraged to return to her duties. But he concluded the circumstances could not attract damages.
The judgment raised the possibility that the school could be required to pay the losing party’s costs in the High Court and Supreme Court, given the school’s failure to acknowledge its fault and the litigation’s clarification of the law. It said costs required separate consideration and that the final form of the order would be decided after submissions on the principal judgment and Justice Charleton’s judgment.