Today’s article looks at Bridget Sweeney V The Board of Management of Ballinteer Community School, a case involving alleged bullying and harassment in the workplace and resulting consequences.

Case Name And Reference: Bridget Sweeney V The Board of Management of Ballinteer Community School [2011] IEHC 131

Court Or Tribunal: High Court

Jurisdictions/Subject Matter: Bullying and harassment resulting in work related stress.


If employers are anxious to establish how the Courts look at the complexities of bullying and harassment claims they need look no further than the Judgement of Mr. Justice Herbert delivered in the High Court on 24th March 2011 in a case entitled Bridget Sweeney and Board of Management of Ballinteer Community School.


Facts

That was a case where the Plaintiff brought an action in damages against the Defendant (as her Employer) arising out of allegations of bullying and harassment.

In that case the Board of Management had already appointed an Investigating Officer under the provisions of the School code of practice to deal with complaints of bullying and harassment. That Investigating Officer found that the Plaintiff had not established that decisions between September 2005 and September 2006 amounted to bullying and harassment.

The Plaintiff had appealed to an Appeals Board. A properly constituted Appeals Board had affirmed the decision of the Investigating Officer.


Determination

The Court ruled that the Plaintiff was not entitled to challenge the findings of the Appeals Board and accepted that the decisions taken by the Employer did not amount to bullying and harassment of the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the Court did look at the facts surrounding the decisions which had been reviewed and found that they were of residual importance. The Court further found that the relationship between the Plaintiff and her Principal Dr. C., demonstrated escalating mutual distrust between the parties as disagreement followed disagreement. The Court noted that it came to the point that the Plaintiff came to believe that every action or omission on the part of Dr. C., whether actually or, as she perceived it, affecting her, was part of a conscious and deliberate campaign by him to bully and harass her.

The sequence of events, including attempts by the Principal to establish the precise location of the Plaintiff, were examined. The Court however found that Dr. C had behaved like an offended tyrant. Even though the Court also found that the Plaintiff’s behaviour was inappropriate and that it should not have been tolerated by her Employer, the Court went on to examine the impact of the actions on the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff had submitted certificates indicating that she was absent from work by reason of work related stress. The Court found that the Employer knew or ought reasonably to have foreseen that any bullying or harassment of the Plaintiff carried a materially substantial risk of the Plaintiff suffering a mental injury as a result which they could by the exercise of reasonable care, have avoided.

The Court established that the Plaintiff was suffering from a psychiatric illness in the form of clinical depression which was directly caused by the actions of the Plaintiff.

The Court looked beyond the actions of the Principal. It established that the Board was vicariously liable for its action and that the Board of Management ought to have known from the correspondence and from their own knowledge, that the Plaintiff felt victimised, bullied and harassed.

The Court examined the duty of care to the Plaintiff. Having found that the Plaintiff was subjected to deliberate and continuous bullying which led to a mental injury in the form of a clinical depression, the Court found negligence on behalf of the Defendant and awarded the Plaintiff damages in the sum of €60,000 to date with additional damages of €15,000 for personal injury into the future.


What Lessons Can Be Learned?

1. An Employer needs to deal very carefully with an Employee who has submitted certificates for work related stress, irrespective of how unhappy the Employer may be in relation to the actions of the Employee.

2. Serious consideration should be given to issues of Mediation and conciliation and certainly referral to an independent Doctor in the event that the Employer has any concerns or is on notice of a concern as to the mental well-being of a particular Employee.

3. Actions which could foreseeably compound the mental fragility of a particular employee could give rise to substantial claims for damages in negligence.

Full Decision:
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2011/H131.html