Background:

The plaintiff is the principal of Little Angels Special School, a school which provides education for students with moderate to profound learning disabilities. The school is governed by Board of Management which is comprised of voluntary members which include parents, community representatives and nominees of the patron, which uniquely for this school is a company limited by guarantee which was created by the founders of the school in 1984 for that purpose. The Chairperson of the Board and his father were directors of the patron company at the time of the proceedings.

The plaintiff and Chairperson of the Board began to have difficulties within a year of the plaintiff’s appointment to the role of principal, and a number of allegations were made against the plaintiff with regard to her performance. As a school governed and funded by the Department of Education, disciplinary proceedings applicable to the suspension and dismissal of teachers and principals are governed by Department of Education Circular 49/2018. The Chairperson of the Board engaged in this process and started it at “Stage 4”, which was reserved for gross misconduct. The plaintiff objected to the process being commenced at this stage and alleged that by doing so, the Chairperson had prejudged the matter to an extent that would make any further process irredeemably unfair. The plaintiff also alleged that the Chairperson was not a suitable person to undertake the report as he was not an independent or impartial person. The defendant Board argued in response that the procedures of the circular had been met, and that as a result the process should be allowed to proceed. The defendant Board also argued the application by the plaintiff to institute the proceedings was delayed and therefore contrary to the provisions of Order 84, Rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.

Outcome:

Ms Justice Butler, hearing the application on an interlocutory basis in the High Court, granted the plaintiff the injunctive relief sought. In doing so she had regard to the fact that the number of complaints raised individually would not have been sufficient to initiate the process at Stage 4 of the process. However, most crucially, Butler J found that the Chairperson was conflicted in preparing the report in question, and that although the circular provided that the Chairperson was required to undertake the report, basic fairness procedures required that where the Chairperson was conflicted, someone else should undertake that task, lending the terms of the circular a flexible and purposive interpretation. The Court also found that the delay argument, while arguable in plenary proceedings, should not be permitted to defeat the application at the interlocutory stage as it was not sufficiently conclusive to pre-empt the questions raised by the plaintiff.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

When undertaking a grievance or disciplinary procedure, it is not enough for an employer to slavishly follow the technicalities of a set process without any regard to the fundamental fairness of it in the circumstances as they arise. Procedural fairness requires consideration of potential bias and an employer should alter of the details of the process (such as the person conducting an investigation or disciplinary procedure) in favour of the employee to mitigate any actual or reasonably perceived bias, potentially by bringing in an external party.

The full case is here:
https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/3db9aa13-9dfc-4e2e-927e-847bd7ff9799/2023_IEHC_312.pdf/pdf#view=fitH