Ruffley v Board of Management of St. Anne's School

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice Irvine,Ms. Justice Finlay Geoghegan
• Judgment Date: 08 December 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] IECA 287
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Docket Number: [2014 No. 298]
• Date: 08 December 2015

[2015] IECA 287

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Ryan P., Finlay Geoghegan J.

[2014 No. 298]

[Article 64 Transfer]

The President

Finlay Geoghegan J.

Irvine J.

BETWEEN

UNA RUFFLEY

RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

AND

THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF ST. ANNE'S SCHOOL

APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

Employment – Harassment – Allegation of bullying by employer of assistant – Award of damages – Causal link between bullying and injuries

Facts: The respondent was employed as a special needs assistant in the appellant”s school. Following an incident in which a special needs student was locked in a room, the matter was reviewed. After another incident, disciplinary action was taken. The matter escalated until June 2010 after which the respondent was certified as suffering from psychiatric injury. The High Court had found for the respondent following the issue of proceedings for damages, and the matter now came on appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Held by Ms. Justice Irvine, that the award of damages would be set aside. Notwithstanding the hopelessly flawed procedures of the appellant in investigating the incidents involving the appellant, the Court was not satisfied that this sufficed to justify an award of damages for bullying. The Court stated that it was not for the Court to provide a remedy for unfair treatment, regardless of the choice of action taken by the injured party. The appellant had chosen to bring a claim on the basis of bullying, but this had not been made out.

JUDGMENT of the President delivered on 8th December 2015

Summary of Factual Background

1. In the judgment of the High Court in this case, delivered on 9th May 2014, O'Neill J. awarded damages to the plaintiff, Ms. Una Ruffley, in the total sum of €255,276 and costs on foot of her claim for bullying and harassment in the course of her employment as a Special Needs Assistant in the defendant's National School. The defendant appeals against the findings on liability and damages.

2. The school is a facility for children with physical or intellectual disabilities, and although it is a National School, it admits pupils aged between 4 and 18 years. It was founded by and is under the patronage of KARE, an organisation of parents which provides a wide range of services for children with disabilities that employs some 350 people. The Chief Executive Officer of KARE, Mr. Christy Lynch, is also the Chairman of the Board of Management of St. Anne's School.

3. The plaintiff received a severe warning in a disciplinary process in the school because of an incident that occurred on 14th September 2009. In the course of her work on that date, she was with a pupil in a room used for individual therapy known as the Sensory Room when she became concerned and sought help because he unexpectedly fell asleep. The Principal was notified and came to the door but failed on three attempts to get into the room. The plaintiff, having returned to the room after calling for assistance, had locked the door from the inside. This became a matter of criticism first by the Principal of the school and subsequently by the Board of Management.

4. In response to the complaint, the plaintiff said that other Special Needs Assistants locked the Sensory Room door and, besides, the school authorities had not given any instruction that the door was not to be locked. There were also practical reasons for doing so: some children, including the particular pupil, had a tendency to run out of the room during therapy and sometimes other children interrupted the engagement by opening the door from outside.

5. The episode might have been forgotten had not another question arisen about the plaintiff's conduct. The Principal had put in place a means of monitoring the particular pupil's progress using the equipment in the Sensory Room over a 4-week period under the plaintiff's guidance. Towards the end of the period, the class teacher to whom the plaintiff was assigned noted an entry that was wrong about the boy's performance. The plaintiff had ticked a box on the monitoring form devised by the teacher that recorded his having achieved a goal that he had not done. The teacher was not satisfied to let the plaintiff correct the entry. The Principal thought this matter was serious and that it warranted re-activation of the original disciplinary issue. Thus, it came to the Chairman of the Board.

6. The Chairman was particularly concerned about the door locking which he considered very serious. He thought that it should have been obvious to special needs assistants because of their training that child safety demanded that such doors should be kept unlocked. He thought the matter should be referred to the Board, which happened on 23rd November 2009. That body decided that the plaintiff should be given a sanction just below dismissal in the form of a severe grade warning. There was delay in notifying the plaintiff, which was done on 21st December 2009 and confusion and mistaken information about how long it would remain on her record. At a meeting on 18th January 2010, the Principal told the plaintiff that the warning would stay for 18 months. The plaintiff said that she had been in contact with her Union and wanted to appeal the decision. On 20th January 2010, the plaintiff was given a letter signed by the Chairman confirming the sanction, in which there was reference to an investigation of the matter.

7. On 27th January 2010, there was a meeting between the Principal and the plaintiff that was intended to get closure on the matter but it gave rise to a complete conflict of evidence, with the plaintiff alleging that she was subjected to severe denigration by her superior that reduced her to tears. The Principal denied these allegations. The trial judge simply records in his judgment that he accepted the plaintiff's evidence.

8. On 29th of January 2010, the plaintiff's Union representative wrote to the Chairman appealing against the sanction imposed on the plaintiff on the grounds, first, that the process was unfair; secondly, that the school had not expressly prohibited locking the Sensory Room door and thirdly, that a final written warning was too severe a sanction. The writer made it clear that he was not suggesting that locking the Sensory Room was ‘acceptable, but rather, that the practice was known and had not been objected to previously’. There was no investigation and the response was a brief rejection.

9. The plaintiff's solicitors wrote and the Board repudiated any allegation of wrongdoing and further correspondence debated the issues to and fro.

10. The plaintiff continued to work until September 2010, when the plaintiff experienced an otherwise minor exchange over alleged lateness for work as the last straw and went on certified sick leave due to work-related stress. She has remained out of work since then. Evidence on her behalf was that she sustained psychiatric injuries that prevented her working. Her employment has not terminated by resignation or dismissal.

11. The plaintiff claimed damages from the defendant, as her employers, for bullying and harassment occurring between the date of the Sensory Room incident on 14th September 2009, and the date when she ceased work, 27th September 2010.

12. The judge accepted the definition of Workplace Bullying in para. 5 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice detailing Procedures for Addressing Bullying in the Workplace) (Declaration) Order 2002 ( S.I. No. 17/2002):

‘Workplace Bullying is repeated inappropriate behaviour, direct or indirect, whether verbal, physical or otherwise, conducted by one or more persons against another or others, at the place of work and/or in the course of employment, which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual's right to dignity at work. An isolated incident of the behaviour described in this definition may be an affront to dignity at work but, as a once off incident, is not considered to be bullying.’

13. In his judgment, the trial judge held as follows: –

‘(a) up until March 2010, the Board might not have been aware of the merits of the plaintiff's case about the sensory room door, notwithstanding that the principal was well aware of it;

(b) from March 2010 onwards, the Board knew what the plaintiff's case was;

(c) from April 2010, the Board knew that other special needs assistants locked the door from time to time.

The rejection of the plaintiff's appeal by the Board in May 2010, without any meaningful consideration of the merits of the plaintiff's case, and the subsequent failure or refusal of the Board in the autumn 2010, when given a fresh opportunity, on foot of the correspondence from the plaintiff's solicitor, to at all consider the merits of the plaintiff's case at this late stage when they were aware of the impact that there are now erroneous and unjust decision was having on the plaintiff was, in my view, a persistence by them in their unfair and inappropriate treatment of the plaintiff.’

He said also that he was ‘quite satisfied that the treatment of the plaintiff throughout this process by Ms. Dempsey was entirely “inappropriate' within the meaning of the definition of bullying in the workplace

(1) that the behaviour of the school was inappropriate

(2) it was not an isolated incident but was persistent for more than a year

(3) the persistent, inappropriate behaviour ‘wholly undermined the plaintiff's dignity at work.’

14. The judge held that the plaintiff suffered an anxiety and depressive disorder resulting from her reaction to what happened from September 2009 to September 2010 – that resulted in a high state of anxiety, low mood, loss of confidence and self-esteem and inability to cope with everyday life. Those conditions, and the fear that she would not get a good reference, inhibited the plaintiff from seeking...