Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Special Needs Assistant

A National School

Representatives

Barry O’Mahoney BL,

Martyna Rekosiewicz,

ARAG Legal Protection

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00004994

22/08/2025

This hearing was conducted in person in the Workplace Relations Commission situate in Lansdowne Road, Dublin. In line with the Supreme Court decision in the constitutional case of Zalewski -v- An Adjudication Officer and the Workplace Relations Commission and Ireland and the Attorney General [2021] IESC 24 (delivered on the 6th of April 2021) the hearing was conducted in recognition of the fact that all formal hearings should be conducted fairly. The hearing was not conducted in public as it concerned a dispute brought under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act of 1969.

Industrial Relations disputes are primarily heard on the basis of factual submissions provided by the respective parties. Relevant parties might be invited to give an oral recollection of events, facts and matters within their knowledge. Testimony may be subject to rebuttal by witnesses or other relevant contradicting evidence provided by the other side.

The specific details of the dispute are outlined in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which was received by the WRC on the 22nd of August 2025.

The Complainant was not represented and made her own case. The Complainant was accompanied by her husband and a colleague who was also a witness. The Complainant was given an opportunity to set out her case and was able to refer to her own lengthy submission including appendices which was received by the WRC on the 7th of January 2026. The Complainant additionally relied on the submission set out in the Workplace Relations Complaint Form which reads as follows:

I suffered socially, emotionally, physically, mentally and financially due to grievance procedures as per Dept of Ed C 0072/2011 not being followed by Principal 4th December 2023, although Principal had awareness that there were procedures. Principal stated “Following the grievance procedures we are at stage 1 meeting the class teacher and/or Principal...” Principal stated at grievance meeting that I could take my grievance to stage 2 (BOM.)

 As a result, I did not get natural justice, (a fair hearing).  Principal apologised 23rd December, 2024, “I am writing to apologies for not adhering to the correct grievance policy in handling your recent concerns.”

Chairperson emailed 20th December 2024,  “Elma..accepts that she would have dealt with the complaint from the parent differently if she was aware of the circular 0072/2011.…While Elma was right to take quick steps to protect the interests of the Child she should have investigated the allegations further with the Sna's involved to give them opportunity to respond to the allegations from the parent.” Principal did not carry out any investigation with us Sna's before she sent the emails.

I used 155 days of sick leave affecting my entitlements for four years; in light of my age this is very worrying. I suffered medical expenses, loss of wages and loss of my sick leave entitlements as I was on certified sick leave between 17/01/24 to 19/06/ 2024.

I applied to WRC 28th January 2025 after Chairperson sent his “Findings” during Christmas Holidays 2024 completing Stage 2.

WRC email on 28th February 2025 informed me that School objected to an Adjudication Officer, Ref (CA-00068887-001.) denying my rights as per Dept of Ed C 0072/2011.

I appealed to the Labour Court and had hearing on 27th May, 2025. Ref (CD/25.78) Madam Connolly finished report (LCR23138) "The Court, in all the circumstances, recommends that the parties return to their established procedures and process the within claim through those procedures, up to and including a referral to the Court if that is so necessary”

I emailed Chairperson June 05, 2025, asking how my grievance could be pursued adding that I was available to exhaust all efforts inclusive of meeting with him or I could proceed to the WRC. He emailed if I would participate in mediation provided by ARAG the company which had represented the school adding, "This session would be facilitated by an independent, …who is impartial and neutral." I agreed.

I enquired June 19th, 2025, when this was to take place, I received email June 20th 2025, asking me to participate in WRC mediation instead. Chairperson informed me June 23rd, 2025, "I will update you on any correspondence that we receive from them."

Hearing nothing, I enquired July 29th, 2025. I got reply July 30th. stating that WRC was unable to provide this for the school. I had not been updated as Chairperson had assured me 23rd, June 2025.  He screen-shot and attached WRC’s response July 1st, to email August 05, 2025.

11th August 2025, Chairperson stated that his “findings” remain unchanged since December 20th 2024, prior to the Labour Court hearing, (May 27th, 2025); adding "I do not want to waste your time as I am not sure that I have anything else to bring to the table…  I suggest that you should take your grievance to the WRC.”

Facing work each day to carry out my duties is difficult and I seek closure.

Grievance:

School submission to Labour Court point 3 “There were three Snas engaged by the school” is false.  The two other Sna’s worked with another child.

I told Principal she was putting me in a vulnerable position when appointed full-time Sna with Child due to precedents with Parent and Sna’s; as witnessed by Sna J June 28th 2023, whom had been told she was key worker as it had to be job-shared.

December 3rd. 2023. I informed Principal I was sick.

December 4th, 2023 Principal emailed me and two other Sna's with an email of complaint from parent of Child whom I was key worker and Principal's reply to parent's email putting me in a very isolated vulnerable position as I was not at work. The Safety, Health and Welfare Act 2005 Section 8 “outlines the general duties of employers to ensure the safety, health and welfare of their employees, including those related to mental health”.  Sending that email without any investigation did not consider my welfare, denied me my rights and caused me to suffer acute work-related stress.

I was very upset as email was very damaging to my career and character. Principal had not raised any issues regarding the care of the Child prior to this.  School Labour Court submission, Chairperson stated page 66/75 “Complainant says that she has never had any previous grievances.” Principal falsely claims that I, “The Complainant rejected the allegations and asked for evidence on what was being said” (point 4 School Labour Court submission.) Principal received email from Parent Friday 1st December 2023 when I was at work; Principal replied to this “I have observed the interactions with them in the last few weeks and I have only observed positive interactions.” This would have served as written evidence; I did not know it existed until I read it in School submission page 2 and pages 16/17.   Principal did not admit she was investigating me/us contrary to Circular 0072/2011 as I/we should be informed that I/we were under investigation at earliest opportunity.

 Principal claimed she was following school procedures; “The procedure is a staged procedure where every effort is made to resolve matters at the earliest possible stage.” Principal did not comply.

School Labour Court submission point 12 states …”no disciplinary sanction was contemplated, the matter being dealt with informally.” Principal’s reply to Parent’s email was “ …I have only seen positive interactions.” How could any disciplinary action be put in place?

15th. December,2023 I requested grievance procedures. Principal arranged meeting after work. I requested that Sna J be allowed to attend. Principal told me to ask Parent myself for an apology. I refused as it was a work issue. She replied that she could do nothing so. I stated I was retaining my legal rights.

Principal suggested I send email requesting apology and she would forward. She did not offer any other solutions. - I should not have been asked to sort this myself

She asked what my concerns were; as I was the only one named in the email, my name should not be shared and issues should have been investigated before reply.

Principal claimed she had investigated; and class teacher had told her of the stage plan.  In School submission Principal claims that Teacher was unaware of stage plan. Point 9 School Labour Court submission.

Page 66/75 school Labour Court submission, Chairperson’s states ““..in the principal’s email she asked the Sna’s involved to “devise a plan with the teacher and parent for the transfer of child to the stage” -this had already been discussed and planned on Tuesday 28/11/2023 and the teacher was aware.””

Principal reassured me that there was no black mark on my work record (witnessed by Sna J).

No request for meeting with Parent was made.

10th January 2024 Principal informed me that work practices were changing, without discussion – I would work with Child until 10:00am and resume working with Child in the afternoons. WHY WASN’T I REMOVED FROM WORKING WITH THE CHILD IF THERE WERE CONCERNS as happened in precedents?

Principal asked if I wanted to pursue grievance. Principal asked me to meet with Parent and herself.

At meeting, I said that I’ve always tried to ensure Child is looked after and happy. Parent said “I know you do”. Parent had stated in her email on 3rd. December 2023 “I have no doubt you have only observed positive interactions. Complainant is a kind person no doubt.” I broke down crying – I cannot understand why she sent the email. I left that meeting explaining that I was crying at home and would not remain there crying. Principal asked me to stay but mentally I was unable.

I was distraught. I was never given the option of going home/leaving school to calm. This did not provide a safe working environment. I wondered if I should go home but was unable to make rational decision.

Nothing was sorted. Principal said her door was always open but due to the fact that I had been told to sort it myself the Principal did not follow grievance procedures.

The Principal’s reply to the Parent’s email contradicted with the fact that the Principal claimed she had investigated the Parent’s email.

I felt unsupported and told untruths by the Principal.

I was suffering health-wise.  

As a result of procedures not being followed, I suffered acute work-related stress and certified unfit for work by my G.P and Medmark between January 17th. 2024 and June 20th. 2024 a day and a half before school summer holidays. I was on medication and counselling was recommended by Medmark which I received.

Stage 1 of grievance procedures had been completed January 15th, 2024.

Forsa advised me in March that I should not deal with my grievance until I was at work. I sent Chairperson of the BOM a registered letter on September 4th, 2024. to advance grievance to stage 2 as per Dept of Ed C 0072/2011. His refusal to meet with me denied my rights as stated in my Contract of Employment.

I sent two more letters. I contacted Fórsa October 2nd. 2024 who emailed Chairperson requesting “Stage 2 be initiated as per nationally agreed…” Four meetings, several emails and letters, my grievance remained unresolved. (All outside of work hours and affecting my family life). 11th December 2024 I emailed Chairperson that I was taking grievance to stage 3 as per circular 0072/2011.  He replied “…we are still in the middle of trying to get your desired resolve in this current stage.” He emailed his findings 20th December 2024 finalising stage 2.

Laws governing grievance

Dept of Ed c 0072/2011 & C 0014/2024

The Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005

My Contract

No objection was raised to any of the materials relied upon by the Complainant in making her case.

The Complainant is deeply dissatisfied with how an issue raised by a parent (on behalf of her child) concerning the child’s schooling experience was handled by the school Principal without reference to the Complainant.

Where it also became necessary, I explained how the Adjudication process operates within the framework of the Industrial Relations procedures. Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed. 

The Respondent had full legal representation at this hearing. A number of witnesses attended on behalf of the Respondent though the Respondent position was primarily set out in a submission received on the 29th of April 2026.  The final paragraphs of that submission read:

42……it is submitted that any employer, including the employer in this instance is entitled to ‘reasonable robustness’ from its employees. At no point did the Respondent call the Complainants competence into question. At not point was there any negative finding or sanction imposed upon the Complainant, nor was there any suggestion that such a finding or sanction might be imposed. On the contrary, the Respondent has spent a very significant amount of time engaging with the Complainant. From the Respondents perspective, there is little more it can do.

43. The Respondent respectfully requests that the Workplace Relations Commission recommends that the conduct of the Respondent in addressing the Complainants grievance has been reasonable, and that it recommends that the Complainant now consider the matter to be at an end.

The Respondent asserts that it has at all times treated the Complainant with dignity and respect and asks now that this matter be at an end.

Where I deemed it necessary, I made my own inquiries so as to better understand the facts of the case and in fulfilment of my duties as prescribed by Statute.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I have carefully considered the evidence, facts and documents that have been presented in the course of this hearing.

The Complainant has operated as a Special Needs Assistant since 2012. There is no doubt that she is held in the highest of regard in her place of work, and it is because of this that the Complainant was asked in June of 2023 to become the one-on-one SNA for a child in the upcoming sixth year class with extreme needs. I understand the child had cerebral palsy. I accept that the Complainant took on this role with some trepidation as the child in question had more needs than most children and the option of sharing the care between two SNAs was preferable to her.

I additionally understand that the Mother of the child in question seemed anxious to ensure that the child was able to enjoy the schooling experience as unimpeded as possible given the issues facing the child. This is to be expected, and I have no doubt that the school and the parents and the SNA service tried to ensure the best possible outcome for each year that the child attended this school.

In December of 2023 the child’s mother emailed the Principal raising a number of issues of concern. The Mother had been prompted to communicate these concerns based on feedback from the child. When the Principal asked (through email) for some elaboration it became clear that the Mother accepted that the child’s actual SNA (the Complainant) is a kind person but that the child was overhearing conversations had between the SNAs working around the child which tended to suggest that caring for and assisting this child was more onerous than with other children.

In an email dated the 4th of December 2024 the Principal revealed the content of the Mother’s email to the three SNAs working in the school asking them to be mindful of conversations had around the child. The Principal accepts in the same communication that there are workplace challenges being faced by everyone. I note that the Complainant was deeply upset at receiving this communication as she was out on a period of  non-work related sick leave. The Complainant was also annoyed that only her name was mentioned in the parent’s email albeit to state that she was a kind person. The Complainant was not happy that this was shared with all three SNAs given that hers was the only named mentioned. The Complainant clearly feels that this amounted to some sort of reputational damage.

There is no avoiding the fact that the Complainant’s reaction at this point in time (whilst understandable) has become something of a burning issue for her and one which she has not been able to overcome.

I fully accept that the Principal ought more properly to have addressed this matter with the three SNAs (separately and or together) before accepting the allegations of an inherently concerned Mother as being matters of fact. I am sure that with the benefit of hindsight the Principal must regret that she did not ask each of the SNAs if they had a view or an observation to make. This was a misstep on her part. It is, I would note, a pity that this misstep was only conceded to one year later and as part of a protracted grievance process.

In any event, having received the email of the 4th of December 2023 the Complainant indicated that she wanted to take this email through the grievance procedure. I can imagine that the Principal was surprised at this turn of events but nonetheless suggested a meeting with the complainant and I am satisfied that on foot of that meeting the Principal organised a three way meeting with the Principal the parent and the Complainant which happened on the 15th of January 2026. It seems to me that in the intervening Christmas period the Complainant became more and more aggrieved at the way in which the principal had handled the mother’s communication, and in particular she has zeroed in on the principal’s failure to conduct an immediate and full investigation. The Complainant attributes some sort of malicious intent on the part of the principal. I, myself, honestly see the actions of the Principal as an attempt to nip matters in the bud and move on.

I have formed the impression that by the time the three-way meeting came about on the 15th of January 2024 the Complainant was in a particularly vulnerable state of mind. I understand that the Parent back tracked from any criticism of the Complainant, but this was too little too late for the Complainant who became very upset and left the meeting. Two days later the complainant went out on certified sick leave and stayed out of the workplace for five months until the middle of June wherein she returned for one day prior to the school holidays. When school re-opened in September 2024 the child about whom this matter was concerned had moved on to the next level of education.

The Complainant continued to feel aggrieved about the way in which she was treated by the Principal who had not conducted an investigation when she ought to have. By now, of course, the Complainant’s sense of grievance was bolstered by the additional fact of having been out of the workplace with work related stress – though this description is not specifically stated in the medical reports that I have had sight of. The Complainant categorically blames the principal for having to take time off which has resulted in loss of pay (as the sick pay was reduced after the first three months from full pay to half pay). The Complainant is also aggrieved that she has had to use up a considerable portion of whatever sick leave allowance is afforded to the Complainant in a rolling four-year period. In light of the foregoing the Complainant felt compelled to seek a stage two grievance process be initiated. The Complainant approached the Chair of the Board of Management (Mr. T) as the party named in the staff handbook as the appropriate person to take on a Stage 2 grievance. I note that there was some confusion over which Grievance policy had initially been used by the Principal. I understand that there is an Employee Employer policy for raising grievances but there is also a parent school policy to deal with issues raised by parents.

Eventually Mr. T (admittedly with a nudge from FORSA) accepted that the Complainant was entitled to move away from trying to resolve this issue with the principal and he agreed to process a stage 2 Grievance. A meeting was arranged for the 8th October 2024 to discuss the Complainants grievance under stage 2 of circular 0072/2011.  The Complainant was looking for a written apology and financial compensation. The Complainant met with Mr. T on the 24th October 2024 and again on the 19th November 2024. Mr. T was also conducting meetings with the principal as was expected to ensure a thorough investigation.

I understand that the principal was asked to investigate whether it would be possible to clear the Complainants sick leave record following her request. Efforts were made to do so. However it was not possible as this was a Department level policy.

A final meeting was held on the 16th December 2024 between Mr. T and the Complainant. The Complainant was still adamant that she wanted a written apology from the principal and was still looking for compensation in the amount of €15,500.00.

On the 18th of December 2024 Mr. T published his findings and Recommendations. It is noted that Mr. T totally vindicated the upset caused to the Complainant wherein he stated:

The Chairperson finds that while the principal was right to take quick steps to protect the interests of the child, she should have investigated the allegations further with the SNAs involved to give them an opportunity to respond to the allegations from the parent. This would have meant that she would have had the full facts available allowing for a fairer picture to help with her decision making on how to reply to the allegations.

The Chairperson directed that the principal should write to formally apologise and acknowledge that correct procedures were not followed.

The chairperson also directed that a fulsome training programme should be undergone by the principal and the vice principal and two board members on the policies and procedures in relation to staff grievances. These training programmes to be repeated every four years. It was hoped by Mr. T that a better understanding about how the procedures work would lead to more efficient outcomes.

Mr. T recommended that policies and procedures around staff grievances should be reviewed on an ongoing basis and any advances should be adopted. This would ensure best practise.

Mr. T further recommended that all staff needed to be made aware of policies and procedures around staff grievances and information should be furnished on where and how to access the relevant information.

Mr. T was not minded to make an award for compensation in respect of the lost remuneration nor in respect of the days taken as a result of the sick leave period.

A letter of apology duly issued from the principal. Unfortunately, the overall outcome did not meet with the complainant’s approval and by an email dated the 20th December 2024  the Complainant indicated that she remained unhappy with the outcome and indicting that she intended to proceed further.

On the 28th January 2025, the Respondent received a letter from the Workplace Relations Commission regarding a complaint pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Respondent objected to the investigation which is regrettable as this is a step provided for in their own Grievance process and should not have been dismissed in the way that it was.

Then on the 25th March 2025 the Respondent received a letter from the Labour Court stating that they had been requested by the Complainant to investigate the complaint. I have been informed that in a further effort to resolve the matter the Respondent was willing to participate in that hearing.

Seemingly the Labour Court took the view that the Respondent ought not to have skipped the stage 3 grievance step obliging the parties to have the matter brought before organs of the state wherein such matters can be considered by an independent person, nominated by the state. The Labour court obliged the parties  (by recommendation made on the 3rd of June 2025) -

‘’to return to their established procedures and process the within claim through those procedures up to and including a referral to the Court if that is so necessary’’

And it is these circumstances that this matter has come before me. I want to reassure the complainant that her concerns have been given serious consideration by me. My conclusions have been reached following a thorough and impartial assessment of the information available. It is not hard to recognise that an email that tends to criticise the very core of the work being performed by the Complainant came as a body blow. That she would knowingly or carelessly add to the distress of a child with special needs was an allegation that did not sit easily with the Complainant. I recognise that the Principals seeming casual acceptance of these allegations was a genuine shock to the complainant who could not (and has not) forgiven the lack of faith in her professionalism and caring nature.

I do not want to in any way invalidate or diminish the Complainant’s entitlement to feel the way that she does, but I have to also objectively consider the actions of the employer. I have already acknowledged that the principle was guilty of a misstep, but I have to also acknowledge that the principal could never have imagined that the complainant would take such a strong view and become so entrenched in her anger.

I am absolutely satisfied that Mr. T conducted a fair and fulsome investigation into these matters and I find that I concur with his findings and recommendations.

I would say, and I believe I echo the Labour Court on this point, the Respondent was wrong not to engage in its own procedures when it refused to have this matter dealt with by the WRC back in January of 2025. To my mind this has added an unnecessary year of delay to getting to the end point. Whilst the end point may not be overly satisfactory for the Complainant had the earlier WRC application been dealt with, the Complainant would be further along on the path to being healed. It is in these circumstances that I feel I am justified in awarding the complainant a small amount of money as compensation.

I cannot recommend that the Employer be expected to be on the financial hook for remunerative and other losses sustained as a result of being out on sick leave. If there is an injury there is an alternative forum.