Teacher sacked on professional incompetence grounds loses unfair dismissal claim
This follows Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Adjudicator Emile Daly finding that teacher Ruth Lydon was not unfairly dismissed by the Board of Management (BOM) of St. Ciaran's National School, Fuerty, Co Roscommon after a marathon WRC process.
Ms Daly made her ruling after 10 WRC hearing days held over a two-and-a-half-year period from October 17 2022 to May 12 of this year.
Ms Lydon worked as a Special Education Teacher (SET) and was dismissed from her role by the school BOM in September 2021.
St. Ciaran's National School is a 60-pupil, three-teacher school. Ms Lydon started teaching at the school in 2002 and in 2010 she became the main SET.
In her evidence, school principal Rosita Murphy told the WRC that in October 2017, Ms Lydon had stopped communicating with the other staff and children's parents.
Ms Murphy said that in a small school in a local community, the situation became untenable. Parents made complaints about discipline in Ms Lydon's class.
Ms Murphy said that in November 2017, there was ongoing evidence that Ms Lydon was unable to discipline or manage her classrooms.
Outlining disciplinary issues in the classroom in February 2018, Ms Murphy alleged that children were hiding in the toilet without Ms Lydon noticing and children were walking around the classroom during class.
Ms Murphy further alleged that in early March 2018, more complaints were received from parents, books were thrown in the classroom and belongings of children were rifled by other children, which caused upset.
Ms Murphy stated that misbehaviour was met with weak and inconsistent responses such as 'Don't do that again, good boy'.
Ms Murphy said that the issues went beyond discipline where Ms Lydon would concentrate on one child while the rest of the class were all talking and misbehaving.
Ms Murphy also alleged that children were raising their voices, on one occasion chanting 'fight, fight, fight,', which Ms Lydon failed to control and children were not doing their work during class.
Ms Murphy alleged that on one occasion, a child used inappropriate language, using the words 'f**king bitch' and Ms Lydon reprimanded the child in front of the whole class, saying 'you can't use words like 'you f**king bitch''.
Ms Murphy stated that Ms Lydon did not appear to think that there was anything wrong about her repeating these words in front of the children.
A child's project was destroyed by another child and when Ms Murphy allegedly addressed this with Ms Lydon, she said it was not up to her to Pritt-stick.
Ms Murphy alleged in March 2018, Ms Lydon took a day off 'to do timetables'.
Ms Murphy initiated a competency process for Ms Lydon in January 2023 as part of the Circular Process and in May 2018, commenced a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) around five areas - Classroom discipline; Standard of Teaching; Engagement with Pupils; Engagement with Parents and Staff and Planning of Classwork.
As part of the PIP, Ms Murphy found that 'Under Poor Engagement with Pupils', Ms Murphy said in response to a question from a child, Ms Lydon said she was 'allowed wear slippers because she was an adult and could wear what she wants'.
Ms Murphy found three of Ms Lydon's pupils sitting in the staff room, having asked her if they could go to the toilets. Ms Murphy found that there was no improvement during the PIP.
Peadar O'Muiri was appointed by the Department of Education Chief Inspector to attend the school to assess Ms Lydon's professional competence as part of an external review in the Circular Process.
Mr O'Muiri made three inspection visits and found that Ms Lydon was not performing at an acceptable level of professional competence in her role.
In her findings, Ms Daly stated that given Mr O'Muiri's findings, that Ms Lydon's work was weak in all areas of competency that he assessed, it is hard to see how the Board Of Management (BOM) had any option other than to respond in the most serious way – which was to proceed to disciplinary action.
A Department of Education circular 49/2018 provides a statutory mechanism for a school to suspend and/or dismiss a teacher.
Ms Daly stated that 'there is a widely-held misconception that a teacher cannot be dismissed from their teaching post. But this is not so, a teacher may be dismissed if there are appropriate grounds to do so and if Circular 49/2018 is followed'.
Ms Daly stated that given the length of time that the Circular Process took - three and a half years - she has little doubt that the impact that this process had on Ms Lydon, the school management, the children attending this small school and their parents "was difficult, attritional and damaging'.
Ms Daly said that she was satisfied that, over time, Ms Lydon did not improve to the level that was required to provide an appropriate education to the children in her care. The school principal said there was ongoing evidence that the teacher was unable to discipline or manage her classrooms (Image: Colin Keegan, Collins Agency, Dublin)
Ms Daly concluded that much time was spent on recording what Ms Lydon regarded to be unfair treatment and making bullying allegations against the School Principal, Ms Murphy, and insufficient time was spent actively listening to the critical feedback that she was receiving from Ms Murphy, her line manager, and reflecting on how she needed to improve the standard of her teaching.
Ms Daly stated that if there is anything the BOM could be criticised for, it is for allowing the process to go on as long as it did.
Ms Daly stated that she was satisfied that the School Principal, Ms Murphy, carried out her duties in accordance with the terms of Stage 1 of the Circular and until she correctly disengaged from the process having completed her Stage 2 report to the BOM.
Ms Daly stated that Department Inspector Mr O'Muiri observed in his report a failure by Ms Lydon to engage with the children, inadequate support plans, inadequate targets or measured progress, disorganisation, not getting through the teaching that was required, not engaging with pupils, reading from text books while children became disengaged.
Ms Daly stated that Mr O'Muiri's findings 'were stark' and Ms Lydon failed every competency that she was assessed on.
Ms Daly stated that she was satisfied that the decision by the BOM to dismiss Ms Lydon by letter dated 18 March 2021 was within a band of reasonable responses to the uncontested findings of the Inspector.
The BOM decision was upheld by a Disciplinary Appeals Panel (DAP) made up of an independent chair appointed by the Education Minister, a representative of a management body and a trade union representative.
Ms Daly said that she was satisfied that the Circular Process was adhered to by both the school and the Department of Education.
The WRC hearing heard that Ms Lydon has obtained other teaching work since her dismissal.
At hearing, Ms Lydon said that she thought the PIP was a complete nonsense and Ms Murphy's report on the PIP was also a nonsense.
Ms Lydon said that she considers the whole Circular process was prejudged by Ms Murphy and the BOM and that she didn't really stand a chance of remaining in her post from the point that it was started.
In the case, the BOM was represented by Cathy McGready BL instructed by Lorcan Maule of Mason Hayes and Curran, while Ms Lydon was represented by Niamh Ni Leathlobhair BL and Mark O'Connell BL, instructed by Dalippe Lalloo, Lalloo & Co Solicitors.
Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest news from the Irish Mirror direct to your inbox: Sign up here.
The Irish Mirror's Crime Writers Michael O'Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
Call centre worker loses unfair dimissal case over abusive language on open phone line
A telephonist who was 'marched out' of a call centre after being sacked for using 'abusive and foul language' over an open phone line in the mistaken belief she had put the customer on hold has lost a claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. Bosses at Infosys BPM Ltd concluded the worker, Colleen Lonergan, jeopardised a 'valuable' client contract and committed gross misconduct when she was heard to remark 'what a f***ing b***h' by the customer last year, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) heard. In a decision just published, the employment tribunal has rejected a series of statutory complaints against the firm by Ms Lonergan, including claims under the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 and the Employment Equality Act 1998. Ms Lonergan told the WRC the phrase was intended to 'describe the situation rather than the customer', the tribunal noted. READ MORE 'The problem is that the customer heard it and took it to be a direct reference to her,' a WRC adjudicator wrote. It happened during a 'particularly difficult' call on in June last year, when Ms Lonergan said she had been 'on the phone for an hour and 45 minutes without help', the tribunal noted. Ms Lonergan's evidence was that she 'thought the call was on hold'. Adjudication officer Penelope McGrath wrote in her decision that, by the time the case came before her, the tape of the call that had been reviewed in a company investigation had been wiped. 'There does not seem to be any doubt that the complainant used the word 'b***h' while on the call,' the adjudicator wrote. She noted the sworn evidence of the company investigator, a junior operations manager, that the phrase used was: 'What a f***ing b***h.' 'I understand that the tape was played in the course of the investigation and disciplinary process and that there was, at that time, no dispute that the language which was used was unacceptable,' Ms McGrath wrote. The adjudicator wrote that it was to Ms Lonergan's credit that she 'owned her mistake immediately' and raised it with the team leader. Ms Lonergan was allowed to keep working for a number of days while a disciplinary process took its course in early July 2024, but was 'marched out of the building' upon her dismissal in what the adjudicator considered to be 'regrettable' circumstances. Ms Lonergan, had also advanced a complaint of workplace discrimination against her former employer, referenced absences from work owing to health trouble on one occasion, and 'a breakdown crying at work over home issues and bad calls from customers' on another. 'I was continually harassed about taking too long coming back from toilet and breaks even though I was struggling with my various health issues,' Ms Lonergan wrote in a letter to the WRC. 'It's my belief that when I made the mistake on the call… the company took full opportunity to terminate my employment because of my ongoing health issues,' she added. The company's position was that there was 'no substance whatsoever to these allegations', the WRC noted. Addressing the disability discrimination element of the claim, the adjudicator wrote that she did not form the impression that Ms Lonergan's team leader had to 'chivvy' her along from bathroom and smoke breaks any 'more or less' than other staff. 'I note there were never any disciplinary issues around timekeeping and must assume that the team leader was simply doing her job,' Ms McGrath wrote. 'The respondent's position is that the claimant's behaviour in calling a customer a 'f***ing b***h' on a recorded call was completely unacceptable in the workplace, constitutes gross misconduct and warranted dismissal,' its representative Muireann McEnery submitted. Referencing this in her decision on the unfair dismissal claim, Ms McGrath wrote: 'I approve the respondent position as set out in the submission received.' She dismissed both the unfair dismissal and the disability discrimination complaints, along with further claims by Ms Lonergan under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997, the Terms of Employment (Information) Act 1994, and the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Act 1973.
RTÉ News
a day ago
- RTÉ News
Calling manager 'useless' not a firing offence, WRC finds
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has ordered Tesco to re-employ a worker it sacked last year for calling his manager "useless" in a performance review meeting - after ruling the supermarket's management went over the top in dismissing him. Trade union SIPTU had accused supermarket bosses of "circling the wagons" in response to a legitimate grievance and subjecting the worker to a "crude exhibition of power" by upgrading a final written warning to summary dismissal to get rid of him. "The emperor does not like being told that he isn't wearing any clothes," the complainant's union rep said in a submission when the case came before the tribunal earlier this year. Denying warehouse operative Cathal Hussey's complaint under the Unfair Dismissal Act 1977, Tesco Ireland Ltd took the position that the manager's dignity was violated and the dismissal was "justified". Vivian Cullen of the SIPTU Workers' Rights Centre, appearing for Mr Hussey, submitted that his client, a Tesco employee of 16 years earning €700 a week, had "outstanding legitimate grievances which were being ignored by management" when he met with his line manager, Martynas Bajarunas for a performance review meeting on 25 November 2023. According to Mr Bajarunas's account of the meeting, the claimant read from a 12-page document outlining unspecified "concerns and issues". "At the end, he said to me: 'You are useless.'" The witness said he felt "harassed, stressed and bullied" by the remark, adding later that he had made a formal complaint because he felt "unsafe coming to work". The complainant, Mr Hussey, did not give any evidence to the tribunal. The tribunal heard Mr Bajarunas filed a formal grievance under the company's bullying and harassment policy against Mr Hussey – who refused to participate in an investigation meeting in January 2024. The probe concluded Mr Hussey had committed a breach of the policy. The contents of the 12-page document he had produced and read were out of line with company policy and "very concerning, unreasonable, disrespectful and improper", the investigator further concluded. Following a disciplinary meeting on 19 January, which Mr Hussey did attend, a company disciplinary officer decided there was "serious misconduct because the dignity of [Mr Bajarunas] was violated", the tribunal heard. Mr Hussey appealed the sanction imposed, a final written warning. However, the senior human resources officer who heard the appeal, Mary White, decided to upgrade the sanction to summary dismissal, the tribunal was told. Ms White gave evidence that the 12-page document showed Mr Hussey's remark was "not a heat-of-the-moment type of thing". "This was all put in writing, that he thought [Martynas Bajarunas] was useless, and he was giving out about other managers," she said, adding that it was "inappropriate behaviour to call someone 'useless'". She believed re-location was "not really an option" as there was "no remorse and no apology". Ms White agreed when Mr Cullen put it to her that bullying was "inappropriate repetitive behaviour". Mr Cullen put it to the witness that there was a single allegation that his client "called someone useless" and asked whether she regarded that as "a dismissible offence". "Yes," Ms White said. Mr Hussey's further appeal of the sanction was upheld by a second company appeals officer. Adjudicator Eileen Campbell wrote in her decision that the final written warning "should have remained the sanction and should not have been elevated". The reason for escalating the sanction to summary dismissal had "not been justified or explained to any degree of satisfaction" by Tesco, she wrote. "I do not condone in any way the complainant's behaviour towards the line manager, which is unacceptable on any level," she wrote. However, she concluded Tesco had "failed to requirement for reasonableness" set out in the Unfair Dismissals Act. Upholding Mr Hussey's complaint, she rejected the union's application for full reinstatement – a remedy which would have meant the employer was liable to pay Mr Hussey back wages from the point of dismissal. Instead, Ms Campbell directed Tesco to re-engage the worker in employment by mid-August this year, with afinal written warning to remain on his personnel file for a year. She directed that the period since his Mr Hussey's dismissal be treated as unpaid suspension. Closing submissions In a closing submission, Dajana Sinik of IBEC, for the employer, said she would have liked to ask Mr Hussey why he wanted his job back in a company "that he alleges exploits its employees" and that it was "disappointing" that he did not testify. She argued the document produced by Mr Hussey showed a "breakdown" in the employment relationship. Mr Cullen argued the case against Mr Hussey was a "cynical" attempt to "silence a genuine grievance". He said his client "did not in fact bully or harass his manager but merely tried to highlight on-going concerns. including a request to change line managers". "The concept of bullying and harassment has been weaponised against the complainant in a fait accompli; management circling the wagons," he added. "Their way of dealing with a problem… was to get rid of the problem, the complainant. It is submitted the emperor does not like being told that he isn't wearing any clothes," Mr Cullen said.
Irish Independent
a day ago
- Irish Independent
The Indo Daily Extra: Conor McGregor loses appeal in Nikita Hand civil rape case
Today at 12:42 Conor McGregor has lost his challenge against a High Court jury's finding that he raped Nikita Hand in a Dublin penthouse. Ms Hand sued the former MMA fighter for damages for raping her at the Beacon Hotel on December 9, 2018. Last November, a jury of eight women and four men found that McGregor (37) civilly liable for the assault and awarded her almost €250,000 in damages. McGregor had told the trial that he had consensual sex with Ms Hand and launched an appeal against the jury's decision on a number of grounds. Speaking outside the High Court, Ms Hand thanked her legal team, the rape crisis centre, and three judges of the appeal court. 'I'm deeply grateful for everyone who supported me, believed in me and stood by my side during this long and painful journey. 'This appeal has retraumatised me over and over again. 'Being forced to relive it, what has happened has had a huge impact on me. 'For every survivor out there, I know how hard it is but please don't be silent, you deserve to be heard, you also deserve justice. 'Today I can finally move on and try to heal. Thank you.' Asked if she had any message for Conor McGregor, Ms Hand said 'no thank you'. Today on this Indo Daily Extra, Fionnán Sheahan is joined by Robin Schiller, Senior Journalist with The Irish Independent to ask, is this the end of the line for Conor McGregor, in a case that gripped the nation?
