Una Ruffley v The Board of Management St Anne's School

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O’Neill J.
• Judgment Date: 09 May 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] IEHC 235
• Docket Number: [2011 No. 3819 P]
• Date: 09 May 2014
• Court: High Court

BETWEEN

UNA RUFFLEY

PLAINTIFF

AND

THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT ST. ANNE’S SCHOOL

DEFENDANTS

[2014] IEHC 235

[2011 No. 3819 P]

THE HIGH COURT

Tort law – Damages – Bullying and Harassment – Employment – Disciplinary Proceedings - Identifiable Psychiatric Injury - Workplace Bullying – Anxiety and Depression – Medical Evidence

The facts of this case stem from the alleged prolonged bullying and harassment of a special needs worker by her employers. Una Ruffley (Plaintiff) sought damages for bullying and harassment against her employers, the Board of Management St. Anne's School (Defendant) in the course of her work as a Special Needs Assistant. The issue was brought before O'Neill J. in the High Court who had the task of ascertaining whether the employer’s conduct qualified as bullying and harassment under the relevant statutory and case law. The alleged bullying occurred between September 2009 and September 2010.

O'Neill J. attempted to uncover what exactly prompted particular conduct from the defendant employers and the effect of said conduct on the plaintiff. It was discovered that the plaintiff had locked a sensory room while inside with one of the special needs pupils. After becoming aware of this the principal organized a review of the plaintiff’s actions and threatened disciplinary action upon reoccurrence even though the plaintiff contended that the protocol surrounding the sensory room was unclear over the years of her employment there. Following this, the plaintiff’s superiors began to act inappropriately in regards to the plaintiff, making her job difficult to perform, allegedly misrepresenting what the plaintiff said and threatening further disciplinary action. O'Neill J. was convinced that the plaintiff had demonstrated that the inappropriate behaviour of the defendants was not merely an isolated incident but was persistent over a period of in excess of one year and wholly undermined the plaintiff’s dignity at work. O’Neill J was satisfied that this was a case of ‘Workplace Bullying’ as defined in paragraph 5 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. Establishing that bullying had taken place O'Neill J contemplated whether or not the plaintiff had, as a result of the conduct of the defendants, suffered an identifiable psychiatric injury. This would have to be proved if the plaintiff were to be entitled to any damages as per Quigley Complex Tooling & Moulding Ltd. O'Neill J, turning to the available medical evidence, found that the plaintiff experienced high levels of stress caused by what she perceived as the unfair treatment of her by the defendants. Having suffered from headaches, insomnia, diarrhoea and high levels of anxiety and depression, and having linked these ailments in time with the bullying and harassment, O'Neill J found that psychiatric injury did indeed occur. O'Neill J held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages amounting to €255,276 for the bullying and subsequent injury inflicted on her by her employers.

O’Neill J.

JUDGMENT of O’Neill J. delivered on the 9th day of May 2014

1 The plaintiff in this case sues the defendants, her employers, for damages for bullying and harassment which, she claims, occurred between 14th September 2009, and 27th September 2010, in the course of her work as a Special Needs Assistant (SNA) in the defendants’ national school known as St. Anne’s located at the Curragh, County Kildare.

2 ‘Workplace Bullying’ is defined 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) as follows:

“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.”

3 In Quigley v. Complex Tooling & Moulding Ltd. [2009] 1 I.R. at 349, it was held by the Supreme Court that for conduct to amount to bullying it had to be repeated, inappropriate and undermining of the dignity of the employee at work. Furthermore, in his judgment, Fennelly J. said:

“The plaintiff cannot succeed in his claim unless he also proves that he suffered damage amounting to personal injury as a result of his employer's breach of duty. Where the personal injury is not of a direct physical kind, it must amount to an identifiable psychiatric injury.”

The facts relating to this matter are as follows.

4 The plaintiff, who was born in 1968, was employed by the defendants as a Special Needs Assistant at their school located in the Curragh, County Kildare. This school is a national school but caters exclusively for children with physical and/or intellectual disabilities, and unlike a normal national school, takes children from the age of four up to eighteen years. The school was founded by the KARE Organisation, which is an organisation of parents of children with physical and/or intellectual disabilities and has been in existence for nearly half a century and provides services, including schools, for children with those disabilities. Over the years since its inception, the range of services provided by the organisation has expanded greatly as has the organisation as an institution itself, now employing approximately 350 people. St. Anne’s School is under the patronage of the KARE Organisation and the Chief Executive Officer of KARE, Mr. Christy Lynch, is also the Chairman of the Board of Management of St. Anne’s School. As patron of the school, KARE also nominates one of the members to the Board.

5 St. Anne’s School caters for approximately 70 to 75 pupils and in 2009 had 14 teachers and 26 Special Needs Assistants. In addition, the school has available to it a variety of other quasi-medical services such as Occupational Therapy.

6 In the school there is what is known as the ‘Sensory Room’. The purpose and function of this room is to develop the sensory perception of pupils by exposing them to a variety of sensory experiences such as music, vibration, movement, light and colour. There is in the sensory a variety of equipment designed to promote the development of the child’s sensory perception. The room in question has been in existence for approximately five years. Prior to that, it had been used as a secure room to store the school’s computer equipment. The room is not a particularly large room, described by one witness as about 13ft x 10ft and does not have any windows. There is, apparently, a skylight. The door into the room is a metal door which could be locked from the outside with a key but at all times material to this case that was never used. There was, on the inside of the door, a lock which was described as similar to the lock on the inside of a toilet door which could be secured by twisting the lock to either open or close it. As will be seen, the controversy that arose in this case between the plaintiff and the defendants centred on the use of that lock.

7 Every pupil who used the Sensory Room had a programme designed for him or her by the Occupational Therapist and this would be carried out by a Special Needs Assistant or sometimes two Special Needs Assistants, depending on the pupil in question, under the direction of the class teacher. In general, only one pupil at a time would be accommodated in the Sensory Room, although it would appear sometimes there could be more than one pupil there at a given time. To successfully carry out the programme, it was desirable, if not necessary to ensure that during the programme there would not be distractions such as the intrusion of others, in particular, pupils coming in to the Sensory Room. Thus, it would appear to have been normal for the door to the Sensory Room to be kept closed whilst a pupil inside was going through a programme. At issue in this case was whether or not there was a common practice amongst SNAs of also locking the door whilst a pupil was going through his or her programme in the Sensory Room, using the lock on the inside of the door.

8 The plaintiff was employed by the defendants as a SNA from January 1999. From then until September 2009, it is commoncase that the plaintiff discharged her duty as an SNA in a satisfactory manner, enjoyed good relations with teachers, other SNAs and the Principal, Ms. Dempsey, and had never had any disciplinary issues or grievances during that 11-year period.

9 All of that changed on 14th September 2009.

10 On that day, the plaintiff was in the Sensory Room with a young boy after 1pm. Soon after the programme began, and when this pupil lay on a mat or mattress, he fell fast asleep. This was a most unusual occurrence for this pupil who suffered from ADHD, a condition which predisposed the pupil in question to hyperactivity rather than the reverse.

11 When he fell asleep, the plaintiff went to the telephone outside the Sensory Room a short distance away and telephoned the class teacher, Ms. Rachel Bramhall, for instructions. Ms. Bramhall instructed the plaintiff to allow the pupil to continue sleeping for a further period of 20 minutes before bringing him back to the class. In the meantime, Ms. Bramhall, being alarmed at this unusual development, rang the Principal, Ms. Dempsey, and asked her to check out the situation. Ms. Dempsey did that and when she approached the Sensory Room, she found the door locked and on her third attempt to gain entry, the door was opened by the plaintiff who readily accepted that the door had been locked. The question of the door being locked or otherwise was not discussed then. Ms. Dempsey confirmed the instructions given by Ms. Bramhall to allow the...