The High Court has refused an application by a former crèche manager for an order restoring her to employment on suspension and salary while her dismissal case proceeds.
The manager, Patricia O’Leary Darcy, had worked at the Lisdoonvarna crèche since 2008. Lisdoonvarna Failte Ltd, trading as Cois Ceim Crèche, dismissed her on 13 April 2016 after a disciplinary process. The judgment records that the crèche served about 65 children and employed 11 childcare workers. The manager’s annual salary was €36,000.
The dispute followed questions about the crèche’s finances and administration. The board said it had not been told about hourly pay increases the manager made in 2014, including an increase to her own pay. She said she had discussed the matter with a previous board and cited staff retention concerns. The judgment says the increases later became significant in connection with PAYE and PRSI payments.
The judgment also records that, in late 2015, the manager told a board member she had diverted about €2,000 to herself by putting her own name as payee on a cheque intended for a supplier, while recording the supplier on the cheque stub. She said she was facing financial difficulties. The parties disputed what was said when she disclosed this.
The board later sought explanations about other financial matters, including supermarket receipts for purchases made far from the crèche. After the manager missed a meeting on 25 February 2016, the board ordered an investigation and suspended her on full pay. It gave her a draft report raising nine issues on the evening of 8 April and invited her to a meeting the following week. Her solicitors sought more time. The board granted an adjournment to Wednesday, 13 April, but the manager and her solicitor did not attend; the meeting proceeded in their absence and she was dismissed.
The application before the court was interlocutory. The judge considered whether the manager had raised a serious issue and a strong case likely to succeed at trial, whether damages would be adequate, and where the balance of convenience lay. He was not satisfied that she had shown the required strong case. He considered damages could be adequate if she succeeded, subject to the trial judge’s view, and found the balance of convenience favoured the company, taking account of trust, confidence and reputational damage.
The court denied the relief sought. The judgment said the manager could appeal the dismissal decision and, if unsuccessful, pursue a wrongful dismissal action under the Workplace Relations Act 2015. The underlying action was to be case managed, with a hearing date to be made available in due course.