Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ruth  Lydon

Board of Management of St. Ciaran’s National School, Fuerty.  

Representatives

Niamh Ni Leathlobhair BL and Mark O’Connell BL instructed by Dalippe Lalloo,  Lalloo & Company Solicitors

Cathy McGready BL instructed by Lorcan Maule,  Mason Hayes and Curran

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977

CA-00045987-001

03/09/2021

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 28 of the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work Act, 2005

CA-00045987-003

03/09/2021

The Complainant is a national schoolteacher who was employed by the Respondent as a Special Education Teacher (SET) until 30 September 2021 when her employment was terminated by the Respondent on grounds of professional incompetence.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent’s investigation into her alleged incompetence was biased from its commencement, the process was flawed and the decision to dismiss her, was disproportionate and unfair.

The witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of Respondent were:

Rosita Murphy (RM) Principal

Owen Creaghan (BOM member)

Michael Quinn (BOM Chair)

Peadar O’Muiri (Department of Education Inspector)

Carl O’Dalaigh (Member of Disciplinary Appeals Panel DAP)

Overview of the Respondent’s defence

Department of Education Circular 49/2018 (hereafter referred to as the Circular) - which gives effect to Section 24 (3) of the Education Act 1998 - sets out the process for the suspension and dismissal of teachers.

There are five stages to this process, which are:

Stage 1 – Informal Stage

Stage 2 – Formal Process

Stage 3 – External Review

Stage 4 - Hearing

Stage 5 - Appeal.

An Overview of the Respondent’s defence is that the Principal and Board of Management strictly adhered to the Circular process and at each stage, the Complainant was given a right to be heard and was heard.

The process was started by way of conversations between the Principal (RM) and the Complainant at the end of 2017, followed by the commencement of an Informal Stage 1 of the Circular Process. Ultimately the Complainant was dismissed by the BOM by letter dated 18 March 2021 on grounds of professional incompetence and she appealed that decision. The process ended with a Disciplinary Appeal Panel decision dated 28 June 2021 (Stage 5) following which the Respondent Board of Management (BOM) wrote to the Complainant on 30 June 2021 advising her that her employment would cease on 30 September 2021.

The Respondent inter alia places reliance on the findings an independent Inspector, who was appointed by the Department of Education, and attended the school on three unannounced visits in September- October 2019 to evaluate the Complainant’s professional competence. The Inspector concluded (report dated 22 January 2020) that the Complainant’s teaching was weak in all five categories of assessment and that she was not performing at an acceptable level of professional competence as a teacher. Under the Education Act 2008, the Complainant could have sought a review the Inspector’s findings, but did not. The Complainant and her trade union were aware of this right to review but did not seek it.

The Respondent submits that, the BOM dismissed the Complainant on the findings of the Inspector. The decision was upheld on appeal by the DAP.  The Respondent submits that the dismissal of the Complainant was within a band of reasonable responses given the evidence of the Complainant’s professional incompetence.

The Respondent’s submits that the dismissal was fair and proportionate and that the process that led to the decision was transparent and complied with the Circular process.

The Respondent submits that over the ten WRC adjudication days the Complainant failed to prove in any respect that the process was unfair, was not in compliance with the requirements of the Circular or that the decision to dismiss was unfair or disproportionate. 

/end of Overview of defence

The Respondent’s evidence

Rosita Murphy (RM) the Principal of the Respondent, under Affirmation, gave the following evidence:

·        The Respondent school is a 60-pupil school in Fuerty, Co. Roscommon.

·        In 2016 the school changed from a 4 teacher to a 3-teacher school, which meant that every teaching hour needed to be optimised.

·        By 2017 there were three classroom teachers including RM herself and two and a half Special Education Teachers (SETs). The Complainant was the full time SET and there was another part-time SET

·        RM has worked in the school for 23 years. She started as an SET before moving to mainstream teaching.  In 2009 she became the Principal as well as being a teacher.

·        The Complainant started teaching at the Respondent school in 2002. In 2010 she became the main SET.

·        In 2017 the Respondent’s SET hours were shared with another school and because the Complainant had surplus hours RM asked her to take on 10 hours of teaching mainstream maths, but the Complainant was unhappy about this so that only lasted 3 weeks at which point RM took maths from her and asked her to do 9 hours of SESE instead which was less taxing. This was in September 2017. Of the Complainant’s 25 weekly teaching hours at that time, she did 10 SET hours; 9 hours of SESE and she had 6 hours of free time.

·        There were problems with the Complainant’s classroom management. In October 2017 it became clear that (despite being given the names of the SET children that she would be teaching the following September) that she had not made plans for the teaching. There were problems communicating with the Complainant. If RM instructed her,  she became immediately highly defensive. She had stopped communicating with the other staff and the parents. In a small school in a local community,  the situation became untenable. Parents made complaints about discipline in the Complainant’s class.

·        In November 2017 because of ongoing evidence that the Complainant was unable to discipline or manage her classrooms RM met with the Complainant and commence the informal stage of the Circular process.

·        RM’s hope was that through discussion, openness, direction, cooperation and learning that the Complainant would discern what needed to be done and adapt and learn. She outlined five areas of concern relating to class discipline, organisation, class planning, engagement with pupils, parents and other teachers.

·        The Complainant took great offence at being criticised. She objected to any criticism that RM made. She told RM to instead look at her own teaching ability because there was plenty wrong with her. Instead of listening to what was a mounting problem, the Complainant went on the offensive and threatened RM with solicitors’ letters.

·        In November 2017 she met with the Complainant in her office to discuss concerns that she had with the Complainant’s teaching and classroom management.

·        From this point onwards RM began to record relevant incidents in her diary, because she feared, that if the Complainant continued to not engage informally the RM would need to commence the Circular Process. RM arranged to meet her again in December 2017.

·        When RM met the Complainant on 21 December 2017 she again went through a handwritten list highlighting areas that she needed the Complainant to improve: Classroom management of Children; Pupil engagement in learning; Engagement with pupils; Engagement with parents/ staff; Planning of work for the class and for individual needs/ Education plans. The meeting did not end well as the Complainant accused RM of harassing her.

·        A few weeks after their return to work after Christmas on 19 January 2018 RM met with the Complainant and gave her an envelope which contained a notice of competency assessment  and a copy of Circular 49/2018. She advised her that she was starting the competency process under Circular 49/2018. The Complainant stated that she wanted to record the meeting on her phone which RM objected to. RM asked the Complainant to engage with her and that she would assist her, but the Complainant stood up and left the room.

·        RM received a letter from the Complainant dated 22.1.2018 which alleged that classroom management was difficult because there is no overall discipline management in the school. It stated that RM had ridiculed her and objected to RM’s criticism of her work. She wrote that RM had no right and that any criticism of her work was within the sole prerogative of a Department of Education Inspector and that she would welcome an Inspector visiting to assess her work. She queried why her SET duties were given to a visiting SET and stated that any time she looked for help regarding discipline that RM told her to deal with it herself and slammed a door in her face.  She requested a copy of her SET contract.

·        RM replied to this letter on 24.1.2018 reminding the Complainant of her responsibilities as a teacher, reminding her that she, as school Principal, RM has a duty to monitor teachers in the school and allocate teaching hours and that the Complainant’s contract was available to download from the Department of Education website.

·        The following day RM sent the Complainant a follow up letter on 25.1.2018 emphasising the need for the Complainant to engage with the competency process because a lack of engagement would result in the process moving to a formal stage. She advised the Complainant to engage with a Dept agency which assists with the professional development of SETs and requested the Complainant to meet with her the following week.

·        RM later discovered that the Complainant had written a letter complaint to the Department of Education (dated 29 January 2018) alleging that the School was misusing its SET allocation provision. RM did not learn of this until much later but the letter is disclosed in the Complainant’s materials and is dated 29.1 2018. RM believes now that this complaint was made in retaliation for RM serving her with a competency notice.

·        On the meeting return date meeting the Complainant was out sick leave but a meeting was then reconvened on 12.2.2018.

·        At the meeting on 12.2.2018, RM asked the Complainant openly what did she need from her.  RM discussed parental complaints that she had received about the Complainant. RM told her that the parent had alleged there had been an incident in the Complainant’s class where a child was asked by another child to pull down his pants and that he had done so. The Complainant acknowledged that this incident had occurred. RM told her that this was serious matter and the Complainant should have reported this incident to her when it happened, which the Complainant accepted.  As serious as these matters were RM found the Complainant more receptive at this meeting. It was more positive in tone than previous meetings. The Complainant agreed to a classroom discipline plan. RM gave the Complainant a diary to record incidents and asked the Complainant for a list of her class rules.

·        However in February 2018 the problems re-emerged. Children were hiding in the toilet without the Complainant noticing. Children were walking around the classroom during class.

·        In early March 2018 more complaints were received from parents. Books were thrown in the class room. Belongings of children were rifled by other children which caused upset. Misbehaviour was met with weak and inconsistent responses such as “Don’t do that again, good boy.” The Complainant would come to RM’s classroom door and ask her to intervene but RM had her own class to deal with. Then the Complainant would complain that she was not being supported, but these matters which required normal discipline were well within the expected ability of any teacher to cope with, without requiring Principal to intervene. 

·        The problems that RM observed directly around this time were not just discipline, although that’s what the parents were complaining about mainly. The other problems that RM observed were inter alia:

The Complainant would concentrate on one child while the rest of the class were all talking and misbehaving; 

Children were raising their voices on one occasion chanting “fight, fight, fight,” which the Complainant failed to control;

Children were not doing their work during class,

The Complainant was not taking charge of the students, when they misbehaved she told them to go to RM’s classroom,

On one occasion a child used inappropriate language (using the words “fucking bitch” and the Complainant reprimanded the child in front of the whole class saying “you can’t use words like ‘you fucking bitch’” She did not appear to think that there was anything wrong about her repeating these words in front of the children.

·        Her class planning was inadequate. She had failed to complete a report for an HSE Assessment of Needs evaluation. She had not prepared Education Support Plans, which are her duty to complete for each child.

·        A child’s project was destroyed by another child. When RM addressed this with her she said it was not up to her to Pritt-stick. 

She had not engaged with parents in respect of children whose behaviour required this.

·        In March 2018 she took a day off “to do timetables.”

·        In March 2018 RM decided to move the process to the formal Stage 2 for which the BOM needed to be engaged.

·        In compliance with the Circular RM wrote to advise the BOM (9.3.2018) to request that Stage 2 of the Circular Process be invoked. This is a formal stage where the informal stage has failed to yield improvement. RM attached a report which compiled incidents of concern that had occurred between November 2017 and March 2018. The incidents were under the headings of: Classroom management; Standard of Teaching;  Pupil Engagement; Engagement with Parents and other Teachers and Planning of Classwork and individual pupils needs, ie the five areas that RM had first addressed with the Complainant the previous November.

Stage 2  - Formal Stage

·        On 14 May 2018,  the BOM agreed with RM’s proposal to move the competency assessment of the Complainant onto Stage 2 of the Circular process. Pursuant to their decision to move to the formal stage, the BOM advised RM to commence an improvement plan (PIP) with the Complainant starting on 31 May 2018. Under the terms of the Circular a PIP should last for 3 months following which point a report is prepared by the Principal and the BOM then may either extend the PIP or, where there has been improvement, discontinue the process.

·        RM prepared a PIP plan for the Complainant highlighting the areas that needed to be improved, which corresponded with the five areas that she had already discussed with the Complainant.  The PIP was due to commence in June 2018, but realistically it meant that it would start on her return to school in September 2018.

·        She then met with the Complainant in June 2018, just as the school year was coming to an end. RM’s expectation was that over the summer the Complainant would reflect and realise that she needed to address the identified problems, that she would take stock and take steps to prepare for her classes starting in September 2018. 

·        At the June meeting RM went through the five areas (Classroom discipline; Standard of Teaching; Engagement with Pupils; Engagement Parents and Staff, Planning of Classwork.) She told the Complainant what she expected her to do. The Complainant appeared cooperative and accepted that she knew what needed to be done. They discussed PDST (Primary Professional Development for Teachers) summer courses. RM gave her details of other teachers who do SET support work. RM hoped that September would mark an improvement to the Complainant’s work.

·        However when school started in September 2018 no such improvement materialised.

·        The PIP period continued beyond 3 months and the following February 2019, some nine months after the PIP had commenced the BOM wanted to retrospectively extend the period of the PIP because the Complainant’s problematic work had not improved over the longer 9 month period. The Complainant’s trade union objected to this retrospective extension and so, the report that RM gave to the BOM in April 2019 related only to her observations of the Complainant’s work between 31 May 2018 until 31 October 2018 (and not thereafter) ie three months as originally set - excluding the summer vacation.

April 2019 Stage 2 Report

·        In her April 2019 report RM observed under Inadequate Classroom Skills that when a child had banged a door shut and RM told her to reprimand the child, the Complainant told the child that school rules are that doors are to be left open, which is not the case. The child should have been told that doors are not to be banged.   Children under her care were allowed to race down the corridor unreprimanded. Children were not cautioned for bad behaviour.

·        Under Unsatisfactory Standard of Teaching; RM observed that the Complainant did not differentiate between different age cohorts within her classroom. She claimed to not know that she needed to prepare Early Intervention SET plans for pupils. In her class the Complainant read out questions and then answers without ascertaining if children knew the answers first. Childrens’ ability were not assessed before they were taught. Diagnostic tests were not done. One child who needed 1:1 intervention was left on his own with a book. A child was lying his head and arm stretched acros a table and she was not interacting with him. In October she was still doing maths that should have been completed in September. A Special Education Needs Officer requested information that RM asked the Complainant for and it was not done and the Complainant blamed Brexit delays. There was inadequate reliance on available resources. She did not charge the IPads in time for class start.

·        Under Poor Engagement with Pupils RM reported that the Complainant asked a Senior Infant Child why she was with the Junior Infants, at which the child became upset. In response to a question from a child she said she was “allowed wear slippers because she was an adult and could wear what she wants.” RM found 3 of the Complainant’s pupils sitting in the Staff room having asked the Complainant could they go to the toilets. Children were not listening to a reading piece and it was read out five times in one class. Children were talking together ignoring when another child was reading aloud.

·        Under Ineffective engagement with Parents and Staff the Complainant had not prepared class plans to start in September and when RM asked for the plans,  the Complainant said that she had not taught the child the previous year, when it was her duty to find out information from other teachers and plan for the children’s needs for the start of the school year. Other teachers asked which children would be receiving interventions and the Complainant said that she “was noting this for the INTO.” RM recorded that parents had complained that the Complainant was disinterested in meeting them to discuss their child about interventions. Confidential psychological reports were left open on the Complainant’s desk and when RM raised this with her she said that it was because she had been denied a filing cabinet.  The Complainant complained when RM asked her to take charge of Early intervention sight reading words, she objected. Two meetings were arranged to discuss this with the Complainant which she did not attend. When she met a parent who was annoyed, she looked into her desk and did not reply to the parent, which was reported back to RM.

·        Under Unsatisfactory Planning for Classwork, RM noted that she was unfamiliar with the Continuum of Support Model for SET. She was unable to produce a simple schedule of work for the year.

·        Overall there was a passivity about areas that she needed to be proactive with and a defensiveness if RM approached her about a need to improve. The Complainant’s response was always the same: She was a good teacher. She was being hounded and bullied by RM. She never accepted that any of the criticisms that were laid against her had validity. Everything and everyone else was to blame, not her.

·        As there was no improvement during the PIP in RM’s report she recommended that the BOM proceed to Stage 3 of the Circular Process.

·        The BOM met and agreed with RM’s recommendation.

Stage 3

·        RM was not party to the External Review and she did not meet him until his final visit on 22 October 2019.

·        The Inspector asked RM for the school SEN policy and Assessment Policy. He asked to see the Drumcondra test results. He had already been provided with the Stage 1 and Stage 2 reports and documents.

·        The Inspector report issued on 22 January 2020. His findings were comprehensive. The Complainant had failed in every area that the Inspector had assessed her competency.

·        RM understood that the BOM arranged to meet with the Complainant in March 2020 and she sent her written response to the Inspector’s findings on 7 March 2020 but because of Covid that was postponed until September 2020.

·        RM gave evidence that other than this she played no role in the External Review (Stage 3) process.

·        She contends that likewise she played no part in the decision making of the BOM at Stage 4. She attended the BOM meeting on 5 September 2020 but did not participate in the decision to proceed to disciplinary action.

·        The BOM set a date for the disciplinary hearing on 24 September 2020 but the INTO on behalf of the Complainant disagreed and it was some time before the date was set. Throughout this time the Complainant continued to work at the school. The atmosphere within the school was difficult. It was around this time that the Complainant issued a complaint of bullying against RM (2.10.2020) which she sent to the BOM. RM understands that the BOM advised her that the Circular process needed to conclude before her bullying complaint could be considered.

·        In terms of the disciplinary hearing the BOM suggested hearing dates in November December 2020 and January, February and March 2021 but the INTO would not agree. Ultimately the hearing proceeded on 11 March 2021 and the INTO objected to RMs attendance and based on their objection RM left meeting when required. The meeting lasted 5 hours. 

·        The BOM met on 15 March 2021 to decide on an outcome. RM did not attend this meeting. RM was advised that the BOM decided to dismiss the Complainant based on the Inspector’s findings of professional incompetence. RM was told that the BOM wrote a letter of dismissal to the Complainant dated 18 March 2021. RM had no role in deciding on whether the Complainant should or should not be dismissed.

·        On receipt of the decision the Complainant exercised her right to appeal the dismissal decision.

Stage 5 – Appeal to DAP

·        RM’s involvement in the appeal was only to assist the BOM Chair to draft the BOM submission and attaching documents as the Circular required, which were then sent to the DAP.

·        The appeal hearing took place on 18 June 2021 in the Department of Education offices in Athlone

·        RM attended the appeal hearing because the Chair of the BOM asked her to, but she did not participate in the appeal hearing.

·        The decision of the DAP issued on 28 June 2021. It was sent to the Chair of the BOM. The BOM decision to dismiss the Complainant was upheld.

·        The BOM wrote to the Complainant on 30 June 2021 terminating her employment on 20 September 2021 on expiry of the Complainant’s notice period.

·        On 3 and 7 September 2021 the Complainant issued her WRC complaint.

·        In terms of the bullying complaint against RM, RM understands that the BOM wrote to the Complainant after the Circular Process had concluded and arranged a meeting on 21 September 2021 to investigate the complaint.

·        The Complainant failed to respond to the BOM and did not attend the meeting.

·        By letter dated 30 September RM understands that the BOM wrote to the Complainant advising her that unless she contacted them by 8 October that this would treated as being that the Complainant’s intended not to pursue the bullying complaint.

·        The Complainant did not respond to this letter.

Under cross examination RM gave the following evidence:

·        RM does not accept that when she asked the Complainant to take on Maths in September 2016 that this was too onerous a workload.

·         Apart from the arrangement only lasting 11 days anyway,  of the 25 teaching hours that the Complainant had, 15 were to be for Maths and 10 hours were for SET. The other SET hours could be done by the part-time SET teacher.

·        The reason RM stopped it was a combination of the Complainant objecting and parents withdrawing their children from her SET classes.

·        In October 2026 the arrangement reverted to 10 hours of SET and 15 hours of SESE. This was not too onerous.

·        RM does not accept that there was other work that the Complainant did in addition to this.

·        Rm said that parents made complaints to her verbally about the Complainant in 2017.

·        RM said that there was a long history of parents making complaints about the Complainant’s work – both written and verbal. The school records show that complaints were received about the Complainant in 2005, 2006 and 2009. This all predates the competency process.

·        The parent’s complaints were relevant in that they formed part of the reason why the competency process started but they were not determinative. The reason to dismiss was largely based on the Inspector’s report in January 2020.

·        RM tried to work with the Complainant. She tried for years. It was when the school lost a teacher that the Complainant’s inadequacies could not longer be worked around.

·        From the first conversation that RM had with the Complainant in November 2020 the Complainant threatened RM with a solicitor’s letter. She refused to accept that she was doing anything wrong.

·        RM accepts that the SEN hours were wrongly allocated and some of her SET hours were changed to SESE hours. The Complainant complained about this in January 2018 which led to a school inspection and the hours were regulated. But part of that was because unless this was done, the Complainant was sitting on free  hours.

·        RM does not accept that she told the Complainant “I can do what I want. This school is my baby.” However she does accept that she was the school Principal and there were duties and an accountability to the children, parents and the BOM that ran with that responsibility. RM says she makes no apology for making decisions that needed to be made.

·        She does not accept that the reason she started the Circular Process was because the Complainant complained to the Department in January 2018 about the misallocation of SET hours. The Circular process started properly on 19 January 2018 (following conversations from the previous November – which the Complainant accepts occurred.)  The Complainant’s SET complaint was made by letter dated 26 January 2018. The chronology of events does not favour the Complainant’s theory of a retaliatory act.

·        RM accepts that she asked some parents, when they complained to her verbally to put the complaints in writing. This was because at that point the competency process was in contemplation (ie late 2017) and RM needed to show the BOM that complaints had been received. She disputes that she encouraged the parents to write complaints. It was only to record the verbal complaints that were being made. Multiple earlier verbal complaints about the Complainant were not taken into account.

·        RM said that she had concerns about the Complainant’s competency. Other staff also were concerned and parents were concerned.

·        RM accepts that she asked a parent (EF) who complained verbally about classroom discipline to put her complaint in writing. She does not accept that when the same parent complained about another teacher that she discouraged her to put it in writing.

·        RM does not accept that there was a campaign mounted by her against the Complainant.

·        RM does not accept that she was undermining the Complainant in 2017, 2018, 2019.

·        RM does not accept that there was a whole school discipline problem.

·        RM does not accept that another parent MM was advised to write a specific complaint about the SET teaching of the Complainant.

·        RM does not accept that she did not offer assistance to the Complainant during (a) Stage 1 of the Circular Process or (b) Stage 2, when she was under a PIP.

·        RM does not accept that the Complainants access to broadband or the printer was restricted.

·        RM does not accept that she refused to sanction buying resources for the Complainant’s class. She did not agree to paying €20 for a box of chalk, but that was all.

·        RM says that there was a suite of digital resources (IPads) that the Complainant did not use. These resources are expensive for the school and important particularly for SET teaching. The Inspector later commented on this. The Complainant did not prepare for the class. She did not charge the IPad batteries in advance of the class. These were simple things to do.

·        At the start of the PIP in June 2018 RM asked the Complainant for a work diary and a set of class rules but these were not given to her.  These would have helped the Complainant to organise herself. Her class room was disorganised. There was no order.

·        RM stands over the criticisms of the Complainant’s work contained in her first report. If lack of help meant that whenever the Complainant needed to discipline children she sent them to RM’s room, RM accepts that this happened regularly. That was part of the problem.

·        In response to the assertion that when parents complained that RM did not support the Complainant, RM said that she tried to but as time wore on and things became worse not better, that became difficult.

·         RM denies shouting at the Complainant in their meeting in November 2017.

·        Rm denies being cool with the Complainant when she gave her the Competency Notice in January 2018.

·        RM denies that her Stage 2 report contained fabrications of events. Rm denies bullying her. RM denies marginalising her. RM denies keeping resources in a locked room. RM denies threatening her or using abusive language. Rm contends that she explained to the Complainant how she needed to improve. She gave her examples. She suggested ways of doing this. Then it became a process that the Complainant needed to do herself. But not only did the Complainant not look for help, she kept denying that anything was wrong. It was impossible.

·        RM accepts that the Complainant felt under pressure.

·        Rm denies sabotaging the PIP.

·        RM accepts that there were not regular PIP meetings scheduled but that is because it’s a small school and she was meeting the Complainant all the time and as the Complainant was not doing anything to change her practice anyway it was clear that she had no intention of self-improving.

·        Every time a problem arose, every time a complaint was received, every time RM saw an action that needed to be different, she told the Complainant. That is how she helped her in the PIP, but the Complainant did not want to listen.

·        RM does not accept that when she received parental complaint letters that she did not disclose them to the Complainant but “banked” them until she drew up her Stage 2 report.

·        RM accepted that her Stage 2 report  - which issued in April 2019 – reflected her view that the PIP had not worked.

·        In terms of the External Review RM denies advising the Inspector to prevent the Complainant from getting into her bullying complaint against RM. RM had been provided with the reports and background information. She left the Inspector to do what he needed to do. When the Inspector asked RM questions, she answered them. He was not interested in the wider view of what was going on in the school.

·        RM does not accept that school policies were not up to date and that the School SET policy was not helpful to the Complainant during her PIP. RM said that there was a Continuing Support policy in place, but the Complainant knew nothing of it.

·        RM said that the system of teaching is not complicated. The teacher identifies children that need SET provision. The teacher identifies the needs of individual children based on diagnostic testing done within or outside the school. The teacher develops a plan to teach those children. The teacher provides teaching to those children in an effective way. As the year progresses the teacher monitors and records the children’s progress on a regular basis and tailors the teaching based on the children’s developing needs.

·        RM denies that there was a lack of resources to help her to teach.

·        Many of the Complainant’s problems were a lack of planning or organisation. She left a confidential report in a photocopier, that could have given rise to a data breach. The psychological reports were not filed away properly. These issues were once offs but there were so many once offs, they distracted from what improvement was required.

·        RM said that she encouraged the Complainant to liaise with the other teachers but she did not.

·        RM said that the PIP was an opportunity for the Complainant to change but she had no inclination to change and ignored direction given to her by RM as to what was required of her. Even though the Complainant had notice in June 2018 that the PIP would commence in reality the following September, when September began she was still unprepared for the school year and had no class plans ready.

Under affirmation Owen Creaghan (OC) gave the following evidence:

·        OC was on the BOM from November 2015 to November 2019.

·        He attended the BOM meeting on the 23rd of April 2018 when the decision was made to put the Complainant on a PIP. This was based on RM’s report and the Complainant’s written response. These were both considered at length by the BOM. RM left the room and the BOM discussed whether to put the Complainant on a PIP. OC accepts that there are no minutes of this meeting.

·        Following the PIP and  receipt of RM‘s report dated the 14 May 2019 the Complainant was invited to submit a counter response. The complaint delayed in doing so but ultimately submitted her report.

·        At a BOM meeting on the 30 May 2019 the BOM discussed the report of RM and the report of the Complainant. Neither the Complainant nor RM attended this meeting. The BOM decided that the required improvement by the Complainant had not taken place during the PIP and that it was necessary to request an external review under Stage 3 of the Circular process.

Under cross examination, OC gave the following evidence:

·        The decision to place the Complainant on a PIP was based on RM’s report and on the Complainant’s response to that report.

·        The Complainant’s report contained mainly denials of what was alleged. There was no counter evidence provided. She didn’t present her own account of what happened.

·        The INTO objected to an extension of the PIP so RM amended her report to the BOM to only reflect a PIP period of 3 months from June to October 2018.

·        After a consideration of RM’s report and the Complainant response dated 27 May 2019, the BOM decided to escalate the matter to an external review.

·        OC does not accept that RM’s report was less credible than the Complainant report.

·        The reality was that the problems with the complaints teaching remained problematic. There is no basis upon which the Circular process should stop at that point.

·        OC does not accept that he was impartial. He was part of the BOM and the decisions taken by were unanimous. The BOM represents the school and the schools interests, not RM or any individual teacher.

Under oath Michael Quinn (MQ) gave the following evidence:

·        MQ became a member of the BOM in 2019.

·        He became the chair of the BOM in 2020.

·        The Complainant made a bullying complaint against RM by letter dated the 2 October 2020. At that point the Circular process was well underway, the Inspector had completed his visits and his report was awaited.

·        The BOM decided that the bullying complaint should not be considered after the Circular process had completed.

·        Following the decision to dismiss the Complainant in March 2021, the BOM wrote to the INTO suggesting a meeting which was then postponed at the INTOs request. The meeting was again postponed to the 22 April 2021. As the DAP hearing was not due to be finalised until around June 2021,  the BOM suggested to the INTO that the bullying grievance meeting take place at the end of May 2021. The Complainant did not accept this suggestion.

·        On the 16 September 2021 the BOM wrote again suggesting a meeting on the 21 September. The Complainant did not respond to that or did not attend. On the 30 September 2021 the BOM wrote to the Complainant again advising that if they did not hear from her by the 8 October that they would consider the matter to be closed.

·        Following her issue of WRC proceedings, in early September 2021 the Complainant put the matter in the hands of the WRC and indicated her objection to receiving further correspondence from the BOM. The reason that the bullying complaint was not investigated by the BOM was because it should not have allowed to intervene in the Circular Process and when that process was complete the Complainant chose not to pursue the bullying grievance.

·        In terms of the BOM’s decision to dismiss the Complainant MQ said that in every area that the Inspector assessed the Complainant he found her to weak. The Inspector’s overall conclusion was that the Complainant was not performing as an acceptable level of professional competence in her role.

·        The Complainant was entitled to seek a review of this Inspector report but chose not to. This meant that the BOM was left with the Inspectors findings which were uncontested. Given the comprehensive findings the BOM were entirely within their remit to decide to move to discipline the Complainant.

·        Under the terms of the Circular the BOM’s choice at that point was to either proceed to a disciplinary hearing or find it no further action was warranted. The BOM decided to proceed to a disciplinary hearing.

·        It was because the Inspector’s report was very detailed and very comprehensively negative about the Complainant‘s competence. The BOM felt that they could not allow the status quo to continue. The SEN children in the school were not getting the support that they needed.

·        The Complainant was advised that a disciplinary meeting would take place on the 24 September 2020. The INTO then objected to a stage four hearing and sought information, which was then sent. The process was delayed by the INTO in November, December, January and February. It was not until the 11th of March that the disciplinary meeting took place.

·        At the disciplinary meeting the INTO represented the Complainant. The INTO wanted the bullying issue to be dealt with before the disciplinary hearing. The BOM advised that this matter had already been decided and that the Circular process would be dealt with first.

·        Then the Complainant read out her response to the Inspector’s report. She provided all the professional courses that she had attended. She provided letters of support from parents. The meeting lasted five hours.

·        The BOM met again on the 15  March at which the BOM considered the Inspector findings the Complainant’s response and the representations raised by the INTO.

·        As chair MQ outlined the range of options that were available to the BOM to decide. Each member of the BOM were asked what was their decision.

·        The BOM decided that nothing that had been raised by the Complainant or on her behalf at the disciplinary meeting that changed the contents of the uncontested Inspector’s findings. The BOM decided that a dismissal was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances.

·        The BOM issued a letter of dismissal dated the 18 March 2021 with the effective dismissal date being the 30 June 2021 at the end of the school year. The letter also outlined her right of appeal to the disciplinary appeal panel (DAP.)

·        The Complainant appealed the BOM‘s decision to dismiss her and that appeal process was dealt with by way of the DAP.

·        The DAP hearing took place on the 18 June 2021. The members of the DAP were appointed by the Department of Education and the BOM had no part to play in that appeal process.

·        The BOM received the DAP decision by letter dated the 24 June 2021. The DAP upheld the BOM decision to dismiss the Complainant.

·        The BOM wrote to the Complainant on 30 June 2021 advising the Complainant that her employment would terminate in September 2021 giving effect to her entitlement to 3-months notice.

·        MQ believes that given the content of the uncontested Inspector’s report that the BOM were fully within their rights to decide to dismiss the Complainant

Under cross examination MQ gave the following evidence:

·        The reason that the BOM did not deal with the Complainant’s bullying complaint against RM was because it was received in the middle of the Circular Process. The Circular Process is set, it does not permit for an intervention of a bullying grievance particularly where the complaint was made well into the Circular process into competency.

·        MQ did not accept that the bullying issue could not be separated from the competency assessment. The Inspector’s report was clear. His findings are in respect of the way that she worked. This had nothing to do with the Complainant’s relationship with RM.

·        The Circular Process started first and needed to conclude before the bullying grievance could be addressed. Once process needed to be dealt with at a time.

·        MQ was aware of an earlier bullying complaint made against RM but that was satisfactorily resolved in October 2019.

·        MQ did not accept that the Complainant was ostracized by other staff members. The Complainant did not bring that to the BOM attention.

·        MQ did not accept that the Circular Process was commenced by RM because of the personality clash between her and the Complainant. If that was the issue, there would not have been parental complaints, observations about poor work practices and the Inspector would not have made the findings that he did.

·        MQ did not accept that it was inappropriate for RM to attend BOM meetings. When decisions were being taken RM would leave the meeting.

·        MQ does not accept that the SEN hours issue raised by the Complainant in 2018 had anything to do with the Complainant’s competency process. The process had started before she made the complaint to the Department and the BOM were unaware that the complaint had been made until much later.

·        The allocation of SEN hours was resolved long before the Inspector attended the school. It could not have had any bearing on his findings. MQ does not accept that the Inspector was biased. He has no reason to think that.

·        MQ does not accept that the decision to dismiss the Complainant was disproportionate. She had a long time to improve and did not. She did not avail of the PIP. She did not seek help. She just kept doing what she had been doing before and refused to accept that she was under performing.

Peadar O’Muiri (POM) gave the following evidence under Affirmation

·        In accordance with the Circular process POM was appointed by the Department of Education Chief Inspector to attend the Respondent school to assess the Complaint’s professional competence. POM is now retired but in 2019 he was a regional Inspector.

·        Circular 49/2018 is the most recent updated Circular. There was a preceding Circular 60/2009 but the operative Circular at the time was 49/2018.

·        Prior to the inspection POM received a copy of the improvement plan that had been given to the Complainant in 2018 and an outline of the case.

·        POM has a diploma in SEN which he expects was partly why he was chosen to conduct this inspection.

·        Under the Circular process the Chief Inspector needs to be satisfied that sufficient support was given to a teacher before an inspection takes place.

·        Once an inspection report is completed by an Inspector, there is a factual verification stage when either the teacher or the BOM can point to errors of fact before it is formally issued.

·        There is also a process for appealing the Inspector’s report which is based on section 13(9) of the Education Act 2008. This is called a review.

·        Following his inspection, minor facts were amended under the factual verification stage and  POM corrected his report and then the report was sent to the Chief Inspector.

·        Circular 49/2018 does not refer to an appeal for which there is a 10 day period time deadline following the issue of the inspection report to the parties.

·        POM inspection visits took place on the 24th of September the 10th of October on the 22nd of October 2019

·        When he visited POM interviewed both the teacher and the school Principal to give context to the inspection.

·        The assessment findings in any inspection report categorise professional competence  applying the following categories: good/good/satisfactory/fair/weak. This is consistent across all inspections and is the format that was used in 2019.

·        POM believes that he conducted a thorough inspection and that he worked hard on his report. He does not want his oral evidence to the WRC to either add or detract from the content of the report within which each word is significant.

·        His findings in respect of the Complainant’s professional competence were found to be weak in all areas of assessment.

·        His assessment was limited to what he saw during the visits and the support plans that he asked the Complainant to provide him with. It is not appropriate to consider the background dynamics that might be at play in any school. He records what he observes.

·        One of the more serious matters that he observed was the inadequacy of the Complainant’s support plans. Support plans are vital for SEN and children. Within a support plan the needs of each child are identified, educational targets are identified. Targets are critical to identify and they need to be measurable and actionable. The targets lacked specificity. With SEN children improvements can be very small steps, but each small step is vital to be observed and recorded. The targets need to be specific and the timeframe of expected compliance needs to be specific. There was no evidence in the Complainant support plans which reflected any consultation with parents. This is significant for a number of reasons. Firstly so that the progress of the child can be marked and the child can be encouraged but also so that information can be fed back to parents. This is important so that parents who should also be fully aware of the support plans can link and support plans at home.

·        Overall, there was a lack of specificity in the intervention that the Complainant intended to apply for each child. The plans that the Complainant should have had for each child lacked individual specificity.

·        POM founds the Complainant to be pleasant with the pupils but there was a clear evidence of pupil disengagement and inattentiveness in all his visits and the Complainant did not attend to this. She did not engage with what was over disengagement by pupils during lessons. There was no system of reward or sanction.

·        Resources that were within the classroom were not used. Digital technology is a vital tool in SEN education. There were laptops in the room which were not used. POM was told that there was an inconsistent broadband coverage. The Complainant preferred to use textbooks but her practice was to teach with a textbook in one hand from which she read out content to the class. This resulted in disengaged teaching because she was reading from the books rather than engaging eye to eye with children. This practice happened in both withdrawal settings and in class teaching settings.

·        POM assessed the Complainant under the following areas:

o   Quality of teachers preparedness for teaching including teachers planning and preparation.

o   Quality of pupil management and quality of organisation of the learning setting/classroom

o   Quality of pupils assessment including the monitoring of pupils work and the recording pupils progress.

o   Evaluation of teachers engagement and other professional tasks that form part of teachers responsibilities including engagement with parents and staff

·        PM’s overall conclusion based on three inspection visits was that while the Complainant endeavoured to progress learning for pupils there were significant weaknesses in the areas of planning teaching and assessment were impacting on the quality of the pupils learning and their learning experiences. This review found the quality of the teachers practice was weak in all lessons and in all settings. Overall, PM found that the teacher is not performing at an acceptable level of professional competence in her role.

·        POM accepted that the Complainant came to the lessons and tried to engage her class however her performance was found to be weak in all areas that she was assessed and this was observed in all lessons.

·        After the report is factually verified, it was sent by POM to the Chief Inspector who then sent it onto the teacher and the BOM.

·        POM’s obligation is to conduct an inspection and draft a report without fear or favour and issue it to the Chief Inspector based on his findings. The impact of his report is up to others to decide.

·        The right to review or appeal an inspection report exists under section 13 (9) of the Education Act and needs to be sought within 10 days of the report being sent to the parties.

·        If a review of an Inspection is requested, under the Circular, the review process is up to the Chief Inspector to conduct. A review panel is established. Observations are submitted on the chief Inspector decide what needs to be done.. The review process is clear transparent and objective. The time limit to see review elapsed on the 6th of February 2020. No such review was sought in this case. The parties each had a right to seek a review and neither party requested it.

Under cross examination, POM gave the following evidence

·        POM accepts that before an inspection is done the Chief Inspector needs to be satisfied that appropriate support has been provided to a teacher.

·        POM was provided with a copy of the PIP before his inspection visits.

·        POM interviewed the Complainant and RM.

·        These interviews were to provide him with a context for the work of the report. It is an opportunity for a teacher to explain her practice and demonstrate her practice through plans.

·        POM observed a clear line of evidence in the complaints teaching practice.

·        The Complainant accepted that a PIP was given to her. She got the PIP and she got time to implement the PIP. That was not in dispute. If the Complainant believed that the inspection should not have proceeded because the PIP was not properly carried out then she could have raised this in a review application. Has she asked for it.

·        When asked if PM could recall the Complainant trying to tell him that she was being bullied to which he said he did not want to know POM answered that he did not recall this however his role is to observe and record what he sees on visits.

·        If there is a staff grievance process in place that is not something that he would take into account.

·        However, the issues where the Complainant fell down on were matters that fell within the ordinary duties of a teacher. She showed a disengagement with her pupils, a lack of organisation, a lack of specified support plans, a failure to use existing resources, a lack of pupil attention which she did not remedy.

·        These issues are up to a teacher to manage. These are standard necessities in SEN teaching, indeed any teaching.  It was the Complainant’s methods and teaching that were problematic. A background interpersonal dispute with her School Principal would not have changed that.

·        When asked to confirm that he was critical of the school and not just the Complainant in that he found that there was a lack of SEN policy for the whole school and would that not have impacted the teachers performance? POM accepted this but said that it is up to each teacher notwithstanding an insufficient SEN assessment policy to remedy that within her own class. How SEN teaching should be done is available on a variety of publications and via multiple supports, if a teacher is unclear on how to teach SEN. The suggestions made in the PIP were good suggestions and if they were improved, those improvements were not apparent to him on his visits.

·        POM does not recall the Complainant complaining that she was marginalised by the staff. POM does not recall a bullying complaint being reported to him.

·        POM was there to evaluate and observe the teacher’s practice. He cannot take account of interpersonal problems that may or may not have existed at that time. When asked was he aware that the overhead projector did not work? He said that his findings about the low use of digital resources went beyond the projector. Resources that were within the room were not

·        used sufficiently. If there was a dispute about other resource has not been provided to her, that did not form part of POM’s consideration. His observations related to the lack of use of existing resources in the Complainant’s classroom.

·        In re-examination POMsaid that during the visits hedidbecame aware of an interpersonal difficulty between the Complainant and RM but he could not allow that impact his inspection. This would not have impacted what he observed in the visits though.  A PIP had been provided and sufficient time passed but the problems identified, still remained in September and October 2019.

Dr Carl O’Dalaigh (COD) gave evidence under affirmation as follows:

·        COD was the chair of the disciplinary appeal panel (DAP) which was an appeal that the Complainant requested following the BOM decision to dismiss her.

·        A DAP is made up of an independent chair appointed by the minister, a representative by a management body and a representative of a trade union.

·        Since 2011 there have been 70 appeals and COD has chaired 20 of these but all these did not relate to dismissals, some were in respect of a lesser sanction.  Competency dismissals are rare. COD would be surprised if there have been more than 6 appeals in respect of competency dismissals. The reason is because Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Circular Process is usually highly effective in causing improvement. The Circular Process is more “carrot than stick” in practice.

·        The appeal points were raised by the trade union representing the Complainant. The appeal hearing took place. This was not an opportunity to reassess the Inspector’s findings, which were not appealed by the Complainant. It is an appeal in respect of the grounds upon which a teacher was sanctioned. The appeal conducted by a DAP is a procedural analysis. For example, if parties were not offered a right to verify or amend the facts recorded in an Inspector’s report. It is not a de novo appeal.

·        COD said that if a teacher does not seek a review of an Inspector’s findings then the BOM have no option other than to rely on the findings when deciding on how to discipline a teacher. In this case the BOM had no option other than to accept the Inspector’s findings.

·        The Complainant was at all times represented by a trade union. They spoke on her behalf and they were listened to by the DAP. However it was not a re-run of arguments that could have been made if the Inspector’s report was appealed.

·        The verdict of the DAP was unanimous. The decision to dismiss was reasonable and not disproportionate based on the Inspector’s findings.

·        The DAP sent their decision to the Complainant and BOM.

Under cross examination COD gave the following evidence:

·        The main argument made, on behalf of the Complainant in the adjudication, that she did not get sufficient support from her Principal during the improvement plan period was not a relevant issue for the DAP appeal.

·        In respect of the argument that the Chief Inspector needed to be satisfied that proper and adequate supports were made available to her by her Principal before an inspection is directed, this also was not a matter that the DAP determined. That may have been an issue for the Complainant to raise at an earlier point in the Circular process. She also could have raised it in a review of the Inspectors report, but no such review was sought.

·        DAP doesn’t look back at how Stage 1 or 2 is conducted or how a PIP may have been conducted. The protections for teachers for unfair criticisms or a lack of support are woven into the Circular process at earlier stages.   The DAP only considers the disciplinary action taken by a BOM based on an inspection.

·        The Complainant’s argument that she did not get fortnightly support meetings with the Principal as part of her PIP was not even raised in her appeal submission to the DAP.

·        The Inspector invited the Complainant to make factual verifications before he issued his report and she did so. That necessary part of the Inspector’s duty was carried out.

/end of Respondent’s evidence

The witnesses on behalf of the Complainant were:

Mary Murray

Elaine Flynn

Ruth Lydon, the Complainant.

Under oath Mary Murray (MM) gave the following evidence:

·        MM was a parent at the school.

·        She and her husband had four children who attended the Respondent school.

·        The Complainant taught some of her children. The Complainant was always very approachable and gently spoken. She was exceptionally kind to the children.  MM never had any issues with the Complainant. One of her children had dyslexia and she had no problems with the Complainant as a teacher

·        Her son had poor results in fifth class having had good results in fourth class. MM arranged to meet RM to discuss this. RM did not help MM and as a result her and her husband decided to move their son out of the school in September 2015. They then considered moving the other 3 children out also because of the overall discipline problem in school. RM invited her to meet with her and MM believed that it was to discuss her plan to move her remaining three children out of the school. However, at the meeting RM asked me to write to the department of education about the Complainant with whom MM had no problem with.

·        RM said that the Complainant was problematic and was not controlling her classes. She said that they had to get rid of her. RM suggested that MM write to the Department of Education and say that the Complainant was not connecting or engaging with her children.

·        MM replied to RM that the only person who is not connecting to my children in the school was RM.

·        MM and her husband, we’re both shocked by this meeting.

Under cross examination, MM gave the following evidence

·        In respect of RM denial that she had a meeting MM and that RM had met MM‘s husband, MM denied this.

·        MM accepted that her children had left the school in 2018 and that after 2018 that she no longer had any further involvement with the school.

·        MM denied the suggestion that RM had suggested her to write a letter to the BOM. Her memory is clear, RM suggested that she wrote to the Department to complain about the Complainant. MM did not do that. She felt that the Complainant was being scapegoated.

Under oath, Elaine Flynn (EF) gave the following evidence:

·        EF was a parent of children in the Respondent school.

·        EF wrote three letters to the BOM in respect of the Complainant teaching. These were in January 2018 and two letters in March 2018.

·        Her overall engagement with the Complainant was positive. She was a very kind teacher.

·        EF said that discipline was worse for the Complainant because there was a group of boys who were “bold” and wouldn’t take direction. They were eight or nine of them and they swore called names and engaged with rough play.

·        This became a problem in December 2017 and EF’s daughter would come home very upset. EF was concerned that the boys were not being reprimanded.

·        In January 2018 EF went to RM to discuss the issue with her. RM accepted that there were issues in the classroom and RM asked EF to put it in writing and send it to the BOM and she did so.

·        EF had not wanted to write a letter of complaint about the Complainant but RM told her that she couldn’t act unless a complaint was in writing.

·        The discipline issues of the school were outside the Complainant’s sole power. There were wider disciplinary issues in the school.

·        EF noticed that the Complainant was isolated from the other staff.

·        EF felt, in retrospect, that RM developed a campaign of encouraging parents to make complaints. EF felt obliged to make a complaint to protect her daughter, but RM should have taken more responsibility.

·        The fact that there was an interpersonal issue between RM and the Complainant was well known amongst the parents. EF believed that if the Complainant had been more supported by the other staff that she would’ve got better at managing the class.

·        EF removed her children from the school. The management of the school was non-existent.

·        RM’s response was always  to say write a letter of complaint about the Complainant. That is all she ever suggested. She never took charge herself as a Principal.

·        Other teachers were critical of RM also, not just the Complainant.

Under cross examination, EF gave the following evidence

·        EF accepts that she wrote three letters of complaint about the Complainant to the BOM. She accepts that it was in respect of incidents that occurred within the Complainant’s classroom.

·        EF did not accept that the only way to deal with these problems was for complaint letters to be sent. She had hoped that RM would deal with the situation.

·        She accepts that she was not happy when her daughter was removed from the Complainant’s class and then was put back into the same class.

Under affirmation, the Complainant (RL) gave the following evidence:

·        RL started teaching in the Respondent school in September 2002. Prior to that she taught for one year in another school.

·        Initially, she was a mainstream class teacher for first and second class. These classes were in the one classroom. This continued until 2010.

·        In 2010 the Principal, RM told RL that she would become the special education teacher, SET. There was no discussion about this or simply instructed her that this would take place. RL was not happy about the way that it was done with no consultation.

·        RL’s relationship with RM until then was satisfactory. They were not friends. RM was a colleague but there was no reason for any concern at that point. In 2010 RL became responsible for SET for the school.

·        Her role of SEN teacher or SET,  required one on one teaching, testing pupils at the end of the year to prepare for their education plan for the following year, setting a timetable for SET provision, selecting children that needed specific SET, liaising with the other staff to schedule these lessons.

·        RL did a summer course for one week in 2010 and every summer she completed an SEN CPD course. She also did night courses on SET.

·        In 2010 her teaching was shared with another school nearby. She was required her to be in the Respondent school for three days a week and two days a week in another school. She was the  SET assigned SET for two schools. However, in 2015 the Respondent school changed from a 4 to a 3 teacher school. And this change had an impact on her teaching role.

·        She no longer was a shared SET with the other school but instead remained full-time in the respondent school. This was the case for 2015.

·        In May 2016 RM sent RL a note advising her that she would also be teaching maths for the whole school the following September that being September 2016. This meant that RL would be doing full-time SET plus full-time maths to the entire school. It was a very odd suggestion by RM and looking back RL believes that this was the start of making life impossible for RL. RL did not know any other teacher who had responsibility to teach maths to a whole school as well as being the SET.

·        The workload that she already had was SET in the school - which required a lot of preparation and planning. She objected to RM for having to do maths for all classes in the school as well as being the SET teacher.

·        In the response to the suggestion that there weren’t enough SEN hours in the Respondent school to give her full timetable, RL said that was not of her making. She didn’t design what occurred. She could not help that there were less SEN children at that particular time. However, there are other ways of remedying such a problem. Filling those gaps by giving her responsibility to teach maths to the whole school was not a good remedy. It was not ordinary or usual. It was oppressive. Other options were for the school to discuss it with the department and SET hours could’ve been reduced. It was not appropriate what was being asked of her. It was stressful and was too much for any teacher. The proposal was ridiculous.

·        Following her objections to this plan after a few weeks, RM decided instead that RL should teach SEN plus history, geography and science to the whole school (SESE.) RL was not aware that parents objected around this time because RM did not make her aware that they did.

·        When RL objected to teaching maths RM said ‘this is my school I decide what happens. This school is my baby.’ RM would not engage with RL at all. She was dismissive of RL.

·        RM turned the other staff against RL around this time. When RL was returning maths manuals to the various staff members, they were not happy and one teacher threw a manual and it hit her leg. When RL reported this to RM, RM just shook her head and did nothing about it.

·        In the academic year 2016/ 2017 the Complainant did the SET work as well as SESE from 1st to 6th class. It was very busy.

·        In November 2017 RM met RL and handed her an envelope. She didn’t explain what was in the envelope. RL only later discovered that it was the commencement of the Circular process. RM marked when she gave it to her and said ‘open it, read it.’

·        RL had never heard of the Circular process before then. There was no warning prior to this notice being given to her. This was the first warning that she had that she was under suspicion for anything.

·        RM, it is not telling the truth when she says that RL walked out of the first meeting in November 2017. This meeting occurred on the school corridor. RL denies that she said that she would speak to her solicitor. She had no solicitor then.

·        The only notice that she got before that was sometime in 2017 RM showed RL a group of letters from parents  - five or six letters. RL was not told about these letters when they were submitted. It was as if RM was collating information to use it against her.

·        Until September 2017, her relationship with RM was never great but there was no serious red flags prior to September 2017.

·        After the meeting in November 2017, RL contacted the INTO who told her that she would need to reply to the criticisms about her and they took up correspondence on her behalf from then on.

·        RL does not accept that the Circular process document was not circulated until January 2018 RL recalls receiving it in November 2017. But at that stage there was 2 to 3 months of observations made by  RM without ever telling her she was doing that. This shows evidence of a desire for a pre-judged conclusion, because otherwise RM would have taken her into her office each time a letter was received to discuss it with her. RL also did not know until much later than RM was encouraging and pressurising parents into writing complaint letters against RL.

·        In her report of March 2018 RM raised several issues in respect of the Complaint’s performance. But the Complainant should’ve been on notice of complaints when they were received from parents.

·        RM’s report of March 2018 is not based on truth. RL has no memory of RM serving a list of rules or suggesting anything. If she had done that RL could’ve followed those rules. Instead RM just said “you write the classroom rules” but she never assisted her with that. She just kept pressing RL for solutions to misbehaviours even though there was a complete lack of discipline throughout the school that everyone knew about.

·        RL tried to engage with RM. RL has no memory of a class diary being suggested by RM.  RL believed that she was being blamed for certain pupil’s behaviour which no teacher could control. All Rm seemed to want to do was blame RL not help her. It is normal in every school to escalate a problematic child to the Principal of the school. This technique was not new.

·        RL had solutions to all the problems but anything she suggested,  RM dismissed it and undermined her. She was never constructive in her support. When RL asked RM to have a word with pupils,  RM sided with the children and against RL. RM also undermined her in front of everyone the staff, the children and the parents.

·        The reality was that RM had no authority within her own class. She had no discipline in her own groups.

·        When RL told RM about problematic pupils within her own group RM did nothing to help her. RM’s inaction allowed the situation to become more and more chronic. RM did not act because the problematic child was one of her friend’s children.

·        In response to the Adjudicator‘s question asking what her strategy for discipline was,  RL replied that she would discuss the issue with the Principal and class teacher because given that she is the SET, she is not the class teacher. She is there to withdraw the children and give them SET. So the discipline of children should not have been only her problem. She only deals with the children for SEN breakout sessions the Principal gave her no . Her own strategy to discipline children is to model good behaviour behave by her own behaviour.

·        When RM gave her report which led to the process escalating to stage 2, formal stage, RM told her “it’s my opinion.”

·        RL believes the real reason that she was penalised by RM was because she complained to the Department of Education in early 2018 about SEN hours being misused by RM and the school, and an inspection in 2018 showed this to be true and the school was criticised. And it was precisely at that time that the Circular process was accelerated against her.

·        RL says she did not copy this complaint letter to RM or BOM. She only sent it to the Department of Education. She telephoned the Department and was told to put her complaint in writing and was advised that an Inspector would be sent to the school and that she would not be revealed as a whistle-blower.

·        She accepts however that the Circular process had already been commenced prior to her sending the complaint letter to the department. But says that that when a momentum against her developed. The timing is too much of a coincidence. 

·        RL was brought through the contents of RM’s first report. She does not recall all the facts that gave rise to the findings but she disagrees with the content of the report.

·        What she does recall is that  in January 2018 she sought assistance from RM about drafting individual educational support plans for a child but RM told her she was too busy and that it was ‘her call - as in RL’s- to make.’

·        By April 2018 RL gave up on trying to work with RM. She denies throwing a timetable at RM.

·        She denies that the individual support plans did not take account of the contents of psychological reports.

·        The PIP should’ve been a phase in the Circular process during which the Complainant received regular and updated support and guidance to allow her to improve. This never occurred. RM left her to her own devices and concentrated on collating evidence against the Complainant. It was not an opportunity to allow the Complainant to improve. The PIP report is all lies. The process was a nonsense.

·        RL made considerable effort to comply with the PIP, but the whole process was contrived. It was all subjective to RM‘s desire to push her out. The PIP was not clear and she was not given any direction as to how to comply with it. The process was absurd. There was no practical advice given. Even though she was meant to meet RM every two weeks as the process required, she never met her. The PIP report dated April 2019 indicates that there were two PIP meetings which even itself falls woefully short of what was required. But RL says there were zero PIP meetings between her and RM during the PIP. It was a PIP in name only. RM was not approachable and RL did not approach her.

·        At the same time, RM was taking every step to undermine her. RL would order resources and RM would cancel them. The other staff cold shouldered her. No one supported her.

·        Following RM’s report dated the 9th of April 2019 on the PIP the Complainant furnished her own 23-page letter to the BOM dated the 27th of May 2019. This set out the issues that she regarded were false within RM’s PIP report.

·        RL said that they were matters raised in the PIP report that had never been raised with her directly during the PIP. That letter set out how the PIP report was inaccurate. The BOM were provided with this letter and the Inspector was also provided with this letter.

·        When the Inspector visited, the first thing RL tried to do was discuss with him the serious  interpersonal dispute that was at the heart of what had led him to be there but the Inspector advised her in the clearest of terms that she was not to discuss anyone else or any other staff member in the school.

·        It was highly relevant to his visit, in terms of assessing her work performance how RM was treating her and had been treating her and undermining her at every turn.

·        But RL was disallowed from talking about the very negative atmosphere in the school. She wasn’t allowed to discuss RM’s treatment of her. She wasn’t allowed tell the Inspector that her resources orders had been stopped. These matters all impacted her performance but she was not allowed talk about them.

·        The Inspector effectively gagged RL from being able to tell him information that was highly relevant to his findings.

·        RL was under acute stress at the time the visits took place. She knew that she was. And yet she was not allowed to discuss these serious and relevant matters with the Inspector.

·        Furthermore, the formal complaint against RM of bullying that she sent to the BOM was ignored. The BOM response was that they would conclude the Circular process first but that meant that the disciplinary process against her was conducted without considering what was a highly significant backdrop. The Circular process became an entirely artificial process in which the main actors selectively chose what was relevant and what was not, in order to reach a pre-judged outcome.

·        When asked why did she not appeal or seek a review of the Inspector report? RL said that the INTO advised against doing so and she adhered to that advice.

·        RL said that under each heading of his report the Inspector made factual errors. He also ignored that there was only intermittent Internet access, he had no access to printing ,  insufficient equipment provided to her, the overhead projector in her classroom was not working and she had requested a CD player and didn’t get one.

·        When asked by the AO if the Inspector’s report was so wrong why did she not appeal/ review it? RL responded that the INTO advised her not to.

·        Following the Inspectors report when the BOM moved to a disciplinary hearing the INTO asked why the bullying complaint had not been dealt with first. The INTO objected to the disciplinary hearing taking case and when that was not accepted, the meeting proceeded. The INTO relied on a whole school evaluation report dated the 22nd of February 2018 in which the wider problems in the school as a whole were identified. They also relied on RL not being provided with adequate resources to teach. And the fact that the Inspectors report did not take account of her heavy caseload and that there was no template of a support plan provided to her by RM.

·        Following the disciplinary meeting the BOM wrote to the Complainant by letter dated the 18th of March 2021 advising her that she’d been dismissed and that her employment would end on the 30th of June 2021.

·        RL was offered an appeal. She appealed on four grounds. These were;

·        that the Circular processes were not adhered to because RM  had not used the informal (stage one) procedure correctly because RM’s compiled  a stage 1 report (given to RL in March 2018) but evidence was being collected to be used against RL and she was unaware this was happening;

·        that RM was present at a stage 3 meeting and should not have been,

·        that the Inspector did not properly consider all the facts and reached an outcome that was predetermined and failed to take account of the bullying complaint against RM and lastly

·        that the sanction of dismissal was disproportionate.

·        The DAP issued the outcome of the appeal on the 28th of June 2021 and did not uphold any of the complaints appear points. The DAP directed the BOM could proceed with the planned disciplinary action.

·        By letter dated the 30th of June 2021 the employment of the complaint was terminated by the BOM and her employment ended following a period of notice on the 30th of September 2021.

·        The Complainant then gave evidence as to loss and mitigation of loss. The Complainant has obtained other teaching work since her dismissal.

Under cross examination, the Complainant gave the following evidence:

·        RL started working in the Respondent school in 2002.

·        She was a highly experienced teacher by 2017/ 2018 when the disciplinary action was commenced.

·        When she was asked to teach maths in 2016 this arrangement lasted only about a month. She does not accept that it was only 11 days.

·        In terms of her assertions of overwork RL accepts that by February 2018 when the Circular process commenced that she was doing SEN work only.

·        RL accepts at the Circular 49 of 2018 was developed and signed by both the Department of Education and the teaching unions, which included the INTO.

·        RL accepts that under the Circular the Principal has responsibility for the quality of education provided at the school and that the Principal has responsibility to allocate resources and manage staff and to ensure the education of the kids as appropriate.

·        RL accepts that every teacher is responsible for one’s own work performance. She accepts that competence issues are primarily the responsibility of the teacher although RL said that all teachers need support and she didn’t receive support.

·        When a copy of the note that the Complainant says she was given to her in 2017 RL accepts that PDST namely professional development services for teachers was suggested by RM to her. RL says she does not recall getting the document then although she accepts that she did reply, she must’ve got it. When asked did she accept that this evidence, that from the first step that RM took in the pre-Circular conversations with RL that RM was identifying the areas that she needed to improve and identified supports that were available to RL to help her improve, RL said that she expected more direct support from her Principal.

·        It was put to RL that a number of documents showed that RM attempted to engage with RL in 2017 and early in 2018 but that it was RL was the person who did not wish to engage and that even her first response letter to RM evidences a defensive and denying approach.   RL replied that there was constant bullying and ridiculing her in front of staff and parents. The meetings took place between RM and RL all involved RL being bullied and undermined by RM. This was how it started in November 2017 and it did not let up until the process was complete and RL was pushed out of the school.

·        RL accepts at timetable was one of her duties and that she had difficulty doing it because there was no collaboration with the other staff or the Principal.

·        RL said she thought the PIP was a complete nonsense and RM’s report on the PIP was also a nonsense. There were no meetings between her and RM during the PIP. When asked was the meeting of the 14th of June 2018 not precisely a meeting whereby RM outlined exactly what the Complainant needed to do for the following year and the minutes showed this, RL denied this. It was a litany of criticism.

·        RL does not accept that there were two meetings during the PIP namely the 14th of June 2018 and the 5th of September 2018. RL said that there were no meetings about PIP.

·        When asked about a meeting, at which another member of staff and a parent attended, in which RM tried to liaise between a parent who was unhappy with RL, RL said she could not remember this meeting. She does not remember any conversations about timetable. When asked was the PIP document that was given to her on the 14th of June 2018, not clear enough what she was expected to do. RL said it was not and she needed more support but she never got it.

·        In respect of the Inspector’s report, RL accepted that the report was based on what he saw on his inspection visits however he was not willing to listen to the background interpersonal issue which coloured what he observed.

·        When asked was his criticisms not about her methodology of teaching, which no interpersonal dispute would have effected, RM replied that the Inspector gagged her from explaining the context of her poor performance when he visited.

·        When asked, does she not recall sending information to the Department of education in advance of the investigation and that she sent observations on the 25th of June 2019, in which she did not mention being bullied, did not mention no resources, did not mention being cold shouldered by other teachers, did not mention the unfairness of the PIP and how she wasn’t helped. RL said that her trade union advised her of what she was to write in that letter and she was told not to mention bullying problem.

·        When asked had she not got an opportunity to input into the Inspector’s report by the factual verification process that she exercised? RL said she did exercise that.

·        When asked when she received the final version of Inspector’s report from the Chief Inspector, if she recalled being advised by him of her right to request a review of the report within 10 days and that a deadline to do so was the 6th of February, RL accepted she did recall this. She accepts that she did not seek a review of the report content. She said that the reason she did not was because the INTO advised her not to.

·        When asked if she disagreed with the methodology of the Inspector or the process that he conducted in the way that she is now complaining of and that if she was unhappy with anything that the Inspector did or did not do,  she was duty bound to seek review of the contents of this report because to fail to do so would mean that the contents of the report thereafter became unassailable, RL accepted this.

·        And respect of her contention that the disciplinary action was because she raised a bullying complaint, RL accepted that her bullying complaint was made was on the 2nd of October 2020 after the inspection had taken place, RL disagreed saying that she raised the bullying complaint prior to the Inspector’s visit.

·        When asked why in her reply to the Inspector’s report on the 17th of March 2020 she made no reference to being bullied, RL said she could not recall.

·        When asked, why did she not in this reply, raise all the issues she is now raising, RL said she did raise them with him.

·        When it was put to her that she was seeking to re-run the Circular Process by unravelling it and criticising the way that it was conducted at each stage, however she did not make these points during the, she disagreed.

·        When RL was asked did the board of management not have her reply and submissions when they were making the decision on the appropriate disciplinary action, RL said she accepted that they did.

·        When it was put to her that she does not identify anything in the disciplinary hearing that was inappropriate or incomplete or not an accordance to the Circular RL said the problems lay in what happened before the Inspector’s report.

·        When asked her she accepted the disciplinary hearing and the DAP appeal process followed the Circular process and does she accept that she has not identified any defect in how these hearings were carried out? RL said again that the problem lay in how the early part of the Circular process was conducted namely how Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Process were dealt with. RL said that she considers the whole Circular process was prejudged by RM and the BOM and that she didn’t really stand a chance of remaining in her post from the point that it was started. Nobody ever helped her in the way that they should have. Had they helped her she could have remained in her post.

RL concluded her evidence.

Before I issue my decision, I would like to extend my gratitude to the legal teams who attended this investigation over a ten day adjudication which took place over two and a half years. I would like to particularly mention Ms.  Niamh Ni Leathlobhair BL and Ms. Cathy McGready BL who were strong and fearless advocates on behalf of their clients. Their efficiency, clear advocacy and well-drafted legal submissions assisted me greatly in reaching a decision in this case, for which I am very grateful.

Circular 49/2018

Circular 49/2018 provides a statutory mechanism for a school to suspend and/or dismiss a teacher.

There is a widely held misconception that a teacher cannot be dismissed from their teaching post. But this is not so, a teacher may be dismissed if there are appropriate grounds to do so and if Circular 49/2018 is followed.

A synopsis of the Circular process and the protections that are provided to teachers is as follows:

Stage 1 Informal Stage: Where Principal of School has identified issues of professional competence. The Principal engages with the Teacher to try to resolve issues. The Principal provides the Teacher with copy of agreed procedures. Discusses with the Teacher about external and internal supports to help resolve issues. Informal process should be conducted within 3 months - excluding holidays. If the Teacher has failed to engage with the process and competence issues remain, Principal may advise the Teacher that the process will move to Stage 2 – Formal Process.

Stage 2 – Formal Process: Principal provides BOM and Teacher a report which competence issues are outlined. Teacher is given an opportunity to respond to the report. Within 10 days of receipt of report the Teacher can request the matter is moves to Stage 3. If no request to expedite the process  is made, the BOM considers the report and Teacher’s response and chooses if there is sufficient or insufficient grounds to continue the process to determine if there is incompetence or not.  If BOM decides that there is an issue of professional incompetence, BOM will charge the Principal with responsibility of setting in place a Personal Improvement Plan (PIP.) The PIP should not extend beyond 3 months. Following the conclusion of the PIP the Principal shall draft a report for the BOM advising if there has been or if there has not been an improvement. This report is shared with the Teacher who shall be given an opportunity to provide a written and oral response to the Principal’s report.  Following a consideration of the report and the Teachers response, the BOM will decide if sufficient improvement has been made, if the PIP should be modified or if insufficient improvement has been made. If the BOM that insufficient improvement has been made the BOM will request the Chief Inspector of the Department of Education to arrange a review of the Teacher’s work.

Stage 3 – External Review: The Chief Inspector shall satisfy himself that the Circular process has been followed before the review was requested (including the provision of supports.) All documentation is forwarded to the Chief Inspector who shall then appoint an Inspector to attend the school to review the Teachers work and to assess professional competence of the Teacher. The external review may be by way of unannounced visits to the school.  Following the external review the Inspector shall issue a report to the Chief Inspector who will provide a copy to the BOM and the Teacher. The Teacher has 15 days to file a written response to the External Review findings to the BOM. The BOM will consider the External Review report and written response of Teacher and within 10 days shall decide that no further action is required or to proceed to a disciplinary hearing.*

Stage 4 – Hearing

If the BOM decides that a disciplinary hearing is required, the BOM will give the Teacher at least 7 days notice that a disciplinary hearing will take place. The BOM shall advise the Teacher that s/he may be accompanied by a representative. At the hearing the Teacher has a right to make her case in full and challenge any evidence. Following the hearing the BOM must take into account all the evidence, submissions and the findings of the Inspection report. The outcome that may follow are: Final Written Censure; Deferment of an Increment; Withdrawal of an Increment; Suspension (with or without pay) or Dismissal. The outcome must be proportionate.

Stage 5 – Appeal

The Teacher may appeal any disciplinary outcome to an independent appeal board appointed by the Department of Education (DAP) 

*Under section 13(9) of the Education Act within ten days of receipt of an Inspector Report the Teacher or BOM may request the Chief Inspector to review an inspection in accordance with procedures that the Chief Inspector shall determine.

Findings on whether the Circular Process was conducted fairly

The Principal of the Respondent commenced the Circular process against the Complainant in January 2018, having had earlier conversations with the Complainant from the previous November about her competence. The Circular process concluded with the Complainant being dismissed by letter dated 18 March 2021 and that dismissal being upheld on appeal. The Complainant’s employment was terminated on 30 September 2021, by letter from the BOM dated 30 June 2021.

I am satisfied that the process that was carried out by the Respondent closely adhered to the process set out in Circular 49/2018. Given the length of time that the process took (three and a half years) I have little doubt that the impact that this process had on the Complainant, the school management, the children attending this small school and their parents, was difficult, attritional and damaging.  

I am satisfied based on the evidence, that the Complainant’s response to criticisms that were laid against her, from the very start of the process, was defensive and that this remained a feature of her attitude to the process until it was complete. The first letter of response to RM in January 2018 denied any poor conduct, advised RM that she had no right to criticise her work and said that fault lay elsewhere.  I am satisfied that the Complainant had the opportunity to improve as a teacher over the long time that this process took, particularly at the early stages. I am also satisfied that, over time, she did not improve to the level that was required to provide an appropriate education to the children in her care. In my view much time was spent on recording what she regarded to be unfair treatment and making bullying allegations against the School Principal and insufficient time was spent, actively listening to the critical feedback that she was receiving from RM, her line manager, and reflecting on how she needed to improve the standard of her teaching.

The Complainant’s case is based on an allegation that the School Principal bullied her and prejudged the Circular Process from the start. She also argues that the Circular Process was not conducted fairly.  However, evidence provided on behalf of the Respondent and indeed from the Complainant herself does not disclose this. Her bullying complaint did not issue to the BOM until October 2020, a year after the Inspector visited and nine months after his report issued, ie well into the Circular process.

If there is anything that the Respondent could be criticised for, it is for allowing the process to go on as long as it did.

Circular 49/2018 provides a balance where the rights of an individual teacher (whose work is assessed for competency) are weighed equally against the right of a school to address professional incompetence. At each stage of the process the teacher is given an opportunity to be heard and file written responses. The Complainant availed of that right and the BOM had sight of all submissions before it moved from stage to stage. I am satisfied that the Complainant has been unable to prove that the Circular Process was not correctly adhered to. Her main argument is that she was not provided with any support by her Principal during her PIP. However, the Circular states that - once deficiencies are identified to her and the mechanism how she could improve is outlined (which it is not disputed occurred in a conversation (between her and R in June 2018) that the primary responsibility to bring about improvement lies with the individual teacher and the role of the Principal and BOM is to support and facilitate her improvement of herself (para 2.7 of the Circular.)

No evidence was given by the Complainant that from June – October 2018 during the PIP that she ever actively sought out the help of the Principal or BOM. The uncontested evidence of RM was that during that time the Complainant was resentful of the process and refused to engage with her.

And the criticisms of the Complainant’s teaching during her PIP went much further than that which could be explained by a lack of support. They varied from the minor incidents (failure to reprimand a child for slamming doors) to the serious (failing to have adequate support plans for individual SEN children by mid-October 2018 when the need for these had been explained to her the previous June, and she had had the summer to prepare these at a time when she knew she was on a PIP.

A submission on her behalf is made that that the whole Circular process was imbued with a bias which favoured the Principal’s report at Stage 1 (informal) and Stage 2 (formal - PIP) stages and everything that flowed from that leaned against her. But that does not take account of the comprehensively negative findings about her competence that the Inspector who made his observations based on what he saw - the methodology of her teaching and he was independent of the school or Principal.

She submits that the Inspector’s findings weren’t valid because he was not prepared to listen to how the Principal was bullied her, over worked her,  did not give her credit for her good work, exaggerated her weaknesses, encouraged parents to complaint about her, did not allow her resources, did not assist her during the PIP, blamed her because the whole school lacked discipline and that the Principal  became determined to remove her from the school because the Complainant had complained to the Department of Education about the misuse by the school of SEN teaching hours in January 2018, which led to a Department inspection and the school being criticised. 

However, the Inspector’s findings were based on what he observed in her classroom on three separate visits. He observed: a failure to engage with the children, inadequate support plans, inadequate targets or measured progress, disorganisation, not getting through the teaching that was required, not engaging with pupils, reading from text-books while children became disengaged.   These were all the findings that led the Inspector to the conclusions that he reached. The backdrop of an interpersonal dispute, even if it was true, is not an understandable explanation for what he directly observed. Furthermore, the Circular process was commenced by way of conversation in November 2017 and a competency notice was served on the Complainant on 19 January 2018, a week before the Complainant wrote to the Department about SEN hours. I am satisfied that the Principal commenced the Circular Process before the Complainant raised her SEN hours concerns with the Department and that there is no evidence to support the argument that the Principal’s actions were in retaliation for the Complainant writing to the Department.

It is the Principal’s obligation to the BOM, the children and the parents, to initiate the Circular process if circumstances warrant it. A Principal’s role in the Circular Process is confined to the initial stages of the process only.  A decision to dismiss a teacher cannot be made without an External Review (Stage 3). That external review came in the form of an Inspector, appointed by the Department of Education.

His findings were an objective assessment of the Complainant’s competence as a teacher on the days that he attended the school and his findings were stark. The Complainant failed every competency that she was assessed on. Weak is defined in the Circular as being “unsatisfactory, insufficient, ineffective, poor, requiring significant change, development or improvement experiencing significant difficulties.”

The Complainant’s argument during the Adjudication in response to the Inspectors findings are varied; that the Inspector was biased/wrong, the Principal was biased/wrong which influenced the Inspector, the BOM was biased/wrong which influenced the Inspector, her union advised her wrongly. In other words, everyone else was at fault and she was not at fault.

But most significantly of all is that the Complainant did not seek a review of the Inspector’s findings, despite the Education Act (s.13(9) affording her such a right. And it was not as if she and her union were not aware of this right – the Complainant’s own evidence was that her trade union advised her against it.  The result of this was that the BOM then had to deal with the Inspector findings which were highly critical and not contested. I am satisfied that the findings of the Inspector became a line in the sand and as much the Complainant has – during this Adjudication - tried to unravel perceived inequities that occurred before the Inspector’s report, the reality is that his findings were not appealed and the Circular process does not permit an unravelling of an Inspector’s findings if the opportunity to review or appeal the report was offered but not availed of and if it had been availed of the flaws as perceived could have been addressed.

Giving the Inspector’s findings, that the Complainant’s work was weak in all areas of competency that he assessed, it is hard to see how the BOM had any option other than to respond in the most serious way – which was to proceed to disciplinary action.

The Complainant has not identified any defect in the disciplinary process (other than to point to earlier problems at Stage 2 eg the way that the PIP was conducted but as has already been found, the findings of the Inspector (Stage 3 External Review) created a new evidential platform for the BOM to proceed with its disciplinary action.  Likewise, the Complainant does not identify defects in the DAP process.

The right to an appropriate education is a constitutional right that every child citizen within this State enjoys. The quality of teaching in the early years has particular significance for SEN children because of the positive impact that early intervention has. If there is evidence of an ongoing failure by a teacher to provide an appropriate standard of education to children in her care, Circular 49/2018 provides the process for a BOM, to address that ongoing failure.

I am satisfied that the School Principal carried out her duties in accordance with the terms of Stage 1 of the Circular and until she correctly disengaged from the process having completed her Stage 2 report to the BOM. I am satisfied that the External Review (Stage 3) was carried out in compliance with the terms of the Circular. I am satisfied that the Complainant was offered a right to review this Stage 3 report and opted not to pursue it.

I am satisfied that the DAP decision (Stage 5) upheld the BOM decision to dismiss the Complainant (Stage 4) and that both the disciplinary hearing and the DAP were both conducted in accordance with the Circular.

Conclusion

I am satisfied that the Circular Process was adhered to by both the Respondent school and the Department of Education.

 I am satisfied that the decision by the BOM to dismiss the Complainant by letter dated 18 March 2021 was within a band of reasonable responses to the uncontested findings of the Inspector. I am satisfied that the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment, by letter dated 31 June 2021 following an unsuccessful appeal to the DAP was fair and proportionate.

I am satisfied that the Complainant was not unfairly dismissed.

CA-00045987-001 The Complainant was not unfairly dismissed

[CA-00045987-003 – This complaint is withdrawn]

Dismissal of Teacher - Department of Education Circular 49/2018