A Supreme Court judge has questioned whether an earlier conciliation process could have resolved a long-running employment dispute involving a national school teacher and avoided years of litigation.
In a judgment delivered on 19 December 2013, Mr Justice John MacMenamin said the judicial review proceedings had been heard only on affidavit. He reflected on the limits of what those documents could show and said interpersonal issues may not fit easily within a legal framework.
The judge noted that Kathleen Fitzpatrick had been on sick leave for 360 days over four years and was again on leave when the litigation began. He said a prolonged absence, particularly where workplace circumstances were thought to contribute to stress, would call for an employer to consider the situation and discuss possible solutions. He also stressed that the evidence did not establish the wider issues he discussed.
Fitzpatrick’s case was that her employers acted in bad faith by seeking a medical assessment before allowing her to return to work. MacMenamin said she had objected, through her lawyers, to one psychiatrist, who was replaced by another. He noted that she did not attend the replacement psychiatrist, and that the situation therefore remained unresolved. The judge distinguished her apprehension of a conspiracy from objective proof to support it.
By the time the appeal reached the Supreme Court, the parties had adopted fixed positions. The court made efforts to resolve the dispute, but they did not succeed. MacMenamin said Fitzpatrick had since obtained alternative employment, though she faced a long commute to her workplace.
The judgment’s discussion of mediation was framed as broader observations about employment disputes. MacMenamin said courts may ask why mediation was not attempted and whether parties had taken reasonable steps to avoid litigation. He referred to rules allowing proceedings to be adjourned for alternative dispute resolution and said such processes might be mandatory in some cases, provided they were fair.
He said the dispute had been in the High Court for five days and on appeal for one day. His remarks concluded with regret that no one had initiated conciliation earlier, which he said might have avoided correspondence, litigation-related stress and the risk of substantial legal costs.
The supplied judgment extract contains MacMenamin’s reflections but does not state the Supreme Court’s formal disposition of the appeal. It therefore does not establish the precise order made by the court.