Today’s article looks at Una Ruffley v The Board of Management St Anne's School [2014] IEHC 235, a High Court decision discussing Bullying and Harassment - A Radical Shift?

 Case Name And Reference: Una Ruffley –v- The Board of Management St Anne’s School [2014] IEHC235

 Court/Tribunal: High Court

 Jurisdiction: High Court Ireland

Subject Matter: Bullying and Harassment - A Radical Shift?


Facts:

The Plaintiff, Ms. Una Ruffley, was employed as a Special Needs Assistant for over 10 years at St. Anne’s School in Co. Kildare. Ms. Ruffley sued the Board of Management for bullying and harassment at work during the period from September 2009 to September 2010. The Plaintiff was supervising a child with ADHD in a sensory room and locked the door. She subsequently was given a final written warning for breach of health and safety code within the school. The warning was to last 18 months on her record. Essentially, the circumstances can be summarised as follows:

1. The Plaintiff contended that it was common practice for the door to the sensory room to be locked if there was a pupil inside carrying out an occupational therapy programme. This was to ensure that there would be no distractions.

2. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Special Needs Assistant from January 1999 until September 2009 without any disciplinary issues or grievances during that 11 year period.

3. The Plaintiff contended that no instruction had ever been given to her or others to refrain from locking the sensory room door. In fact, she maintained that the Principal was aware of the practice (which was denied by the Principal).

4. The school’s safety statement was silent in respect of the issue of locking the sensory room door.

5. While it is accepted that following the incident with the locked door, the Plaintiff was told by the Principal that the school was handling the matter in the context of disciplinary procedure, the Principal’s note of the meeting did not make any mention of any contemplation of further action arising out of the matter.

6. Another incident arose when a programme was devised by a teacher Ms. B in respect of a particular child and the Plaintiff was requested to fill out a form on a weekly basis indicating the activities accomplished by a particular child in the sensory room. The Plaintiff was under the impression that the purpose of recording the activities was with a view to assessing the suitably of the programme for the child and was unaware that the programme was going to be used as an assessment of her conduct. There was an issue raised by the teacher about the Plaintiff’s method of form filling. The Plaintiff and the teacher had proceeded on the basis that there was a miscommunication. However, the Plaintiff was challenged by the Principal for “falsifying the records”.

7. In November 2009, the Plaintiff was told by the Principal that the matter was going to be raised with the Board at its next meeting. The Plaintiff was not informed by the Principal of what was to be put before the Board nor was she told that there might be any adverse disciplinary outcome insofar as she was concerned. She was not told what case was being made against her and was also not given any opportunity to respond to the allegations.

8. It would appear that the Principal did not elicit or conduct any enquiry to ascertain whether or not there was a practice amongst Special Needs Assistants to lock the door of the sensory room.

9. The Plaintiff was subsequently given a final warning for a breach of health and safety on the grounds for locking the sensory room door. She was told that this would remain on her record for 18 months.

10. The Plaintiff consulted IMPACT and subsequently consulted a Solicitor. Despite several attempts by the Trade Union and the Plaintiff’s Solicitor to resolve the matter internally, both agents were unable to advance matters for the Plaintiff.

11. A rather minor incident arising from the Plaintiff’s “alleged” tardiness was the final trigger causing the Plaintiff to go out on certified sick leave due to work related stress.


Determination:

Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill was very critical of the Defendant and in particular, the Principal Ms. D. He considered or found that the full history given by Ms. D to the Board of Management was almost certainly

“untrue, highly biased, coloured and grossly and unfairly damnified the Plaintiff ….I do not think {the Board of Management} would have reached a conclusion so adverse to the Plaintiff, unless grossly misled as to the true circumstances revealing”.

He found that had the Board been told about the true position of locking doors, they might have been shocked that the practice existed and directed steps to prohibit it, but they would not have singled the Plaintiff out to suffer punishment for the practice alone.

He stated that the disciplinary process was:

“grossly unfair to the Plaintiff and utterly denied her the benefit of her constitutional right to natural justice and to fair procedures”.

He accepted that the Plaintiff did her utmost to pursue her grievance through the internal procedure of the Defendant, but the Defendant wholly failed to respond to her and thus she was left with no option but to pursue by way of Court proceedings. He found that the inappropriate behaviour of the Defendant was not merely an isolated incident but was persistent over a period in excess of 1 year. He confirmed that there could be no doubt but that the persistent, inappropriate behaviour of the Defendant wholly undermined the Plaintiff’s dignity at work.

Finally, whilst accepting that the Plaintiff was predisposed to further depressive illness, he was satisfied that the Plaintiff suffered a definite and identifiable psychiatric injury from which she still continues to suffer significantly and will continue to do so for some time into the future.


Damages:

Mr. Justice O’Neill’s awarded the Plaintiff the sum of €75,000.00 for her psychiatric injury to date, €40,000.00 in respect of her psychiatric injury for the future. Total for General Damages = €115,000.00.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s loss of earnings up to the 6th of March 2014 was agreed in the sum of €93,276.39. In addition to this sum, the Judge awarded the Plaintiff half the foregoing sum again in respect of future loss of earnings namely €47,000.00 making a total of €140,276.00 in respect of loss of earning past and future. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was awarded the total sum of €255,276.00.


Commentary:

This award of €115,000.00 for General Damages represents a significantly higher award than damages which have been recovered in previous reported cases for psychiatric injury arising from stress and bullying at work. By way of a comparison, previous reported cases of this nature include:

A. Pickering –v- Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited - 2005 – the Plaintiff was awarded €80,000.00 in general damages.

B. Sweeney -v- Board of Management, Ballinteer Community School – 2011 - the Plaintiff was awarded €75,000.00 in general damages.

C. Kelly –v- Bon Secours Health System - 2012 - the Plaintiff was awarded €60,000 in general damages

D. Browne –v The Minister for Justice and Law Reform – 2012 - the Plaintiff was awarded €55,000.00 in general damages.

The level of damages depends on the individual facts of each case. It remains to be seen if this judgment reflects an upward trend in bullying harassment cases. In the meantime, it may be cause for concern for insurers who may have previously set their reserve at a much lower level. However, this case may be distinguished on the facts and could be said to represent damages at a more severe level.