The High Court has quashed a Board of Management’s decision to dismiss an anonymised principal and teacher, finding that it gave inadequate reasons and failed to give due consideration to a disciplinary appeal panel’s recommendation.
In a judgment delivered on 4 December 2019, Mr Justice Barr said the court was reviewing the legality of the process, not deciding whether the allegations against the applicant were true. The court set aside the Board’s decision made on 14 March 2018 and communicated by letter on 16 March.
The allegations were made by a special needs assistant and concerned the applicant’s treatment of two pupils at a small rural national school. The applicant denied the allegations. The Board placed her on administrative leave in April 2016, referred the matter to Tusla and pursued a Stage 4 disciplinary process. Tusla later said the evidence did not meet its threshold for continued social work involvement and closed the children’s files.
The court held that the seriousness of the allegations justified starting the Stage 4 process and that Tusla’s decision did not remove the Board’s own responsibility to investigate. It also found no legal fault in the administrative leave, the independent information-gathering report, the disciplinary hearing or the use of a secret ballot.
But Justice Barr said the record contained no evidence that the voting Board members had collectively considered the allegations and evidence before voting to dismiss. The brief reasons given in the dismissal letter did not say which allegations had been proved or explain why dismissal was justified. One reason referred to the children having “blossomed since”, which the judge described as irrelevant and irrational.
The applicant had appealed. On 13 June 2018, the Disciplinary Appeals Panel unanimously found that a case had been established by the principal and recommended her immediate reinstatement. The Board rejected that recommendation in a five-page letter. The High Court found that the Board had not engaged logically or constructively with the panel’s findings, which it said should have carried considerable weight.
The judgment does not make findings on the underlying allegations or order reinstatement. Its order quashes the dismissal decision. The court also declined to refuse judicial review on the basis that an unfair-dismissal claim might have been available, given the prompt proceedings and the extensive hearing already held.