WHAT TO KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR…
€255,000 Award To Special Needs Assistant Overturned
A €255,000 award over alleged bullying of a school special needs assistant has been overturned by the Court of Appeal. The High Court had made the award of €140,276 for loss of past and future earnings and €115,000 general damages to Una Ruffley, who worked in St Anne’s National School, The Curragh, Co Kildare.
Ms Ruffley worked for 14 years at the school which catered to children with special needs. Her case arose out of an incident in September 2009. Ms Ruffley was with a pupil in the school’s “sensory room”, used for one-to-one development of a child’s sensory perception. A question which arose during the course of the case was whether it was normal practice for the door to the room to be locked or just closed, as it was generally accepted the sensory programme should be done without interruption.
The High Court accepted evidence of Ms Ruffley and other special needs assistants (SNAs) that it was general practice at the time to lock the door. When the pupil whom Ms Ruffley was dealing with fell asleep, she phoned the class teacher, who told her to allow him to sleep for another 20 minutes. The child, who had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, had a tendency to run from room to room when equipment was being set up, the court heard. The principal tried to gain entry three times before Ms Ruffley opened the door, which later gave rise to disciplinary action against her.
The disciplinary process, “perhaps arising from a misunderstanding”, was honestly pursued in the interest of the children and there was nothing in that process which constituted a sustained campaign maliciously pursued in order to intimidate, humiliate or denigrate Ms Ruffley, the Court found .
At worst, it was a “botched” disciplinary process and not a case of repeated offensive behaviour designed to destroy her dignity at work.
The fact the school board may have conducted an investigative and disciplinary process in a “hopelessly flawed manner” did not bring the conduct anywhere close to meeting the established definition of bullying.
Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan found there was repeated inappropriate behaviour by the principal and the board in seeking to discipline Ms Ruffley, which objectively could be reasonably regarded as undermining her right to dignity at work.
Ms Ruffley was paid €100,000 of the award pending determination of the appeal but Mr Justice Ryan said repayment of that money was not a matter for the appeal court.
Labour Court Recommends Organisation That Is 90% Funded By The HSE To Pay Salary Increments
The Labour Court has issued a recommendation in October 2015 in a dispute over salary increments owed to Employees from Ard Aoibhinn Services in Wexford who are members of the INMO (Industrial Professional Technical Union).
This Labour Court hearing came after the INMO referred this dispute to the Labour Relations Commission in May 2007 but the issue was unsuccessfully resolved.
Ard Aoibhinn Services provides for people with intellectual disabilities and special needs. The Organisation receives 90% of its funding from the HSE and it operates under Section 39 of the Health Act 2004.
Ard Aoibhinn Services claimed that due to its financial position it was not in a position to fund Employees entitlement to salary increases stating that it is:
“Not in a financial position to fund same without an increase in funding from the HSE”.
Central to this case was the subject of an Organisation that relies on resourcing from an outside authority, in this case the HSE. There has been much talk around this area in recent years where Employees have not received their entitlement with ‘lack of funding’ being cited as the reason.
The Unions in this case argued that the Employees were entitled to their salary increments in line with other Employees in the HSE.
The Labour Court conveyed “considerable sympathy” with the Wexford Company but found that it had no other choice but to acknowledge the fact that the Employees concerned in this dispute were entitled to their increments.
The Labour Court found that: “The Court has no option but to acknowledge the entitlement of the staff concerned to increments and to recommend concession of the Union claim”.
A €255,000 award over alleged bullying of a school special needs assistant has been overturned by the Court of Appeal. The High Court had made the award of €140,276 for loss of past and future earnings and €115,000 general damages to Una Ruffley, who worked in St Anne’s National School, The Curragh, Co Kildare.
Ms Ruffley worked for 14 years at the school which catered to children with special needs. Her case arose out of an incident in September 2009. Ms Ruffley was with a pupil in the school’s “sensory room”, used for one-to-one development of a child’s sensory perception. A question which arose during the course of the case was whether it was normal practice for the door to the room to be locked or just closed, as it was generally accepted the sensory programme should be done without interruption.
The High Court accepted evidence of Ms Ruffley and other special needs assistants (SNAs) that it was general practice at the time to lock the door. When the pupil whom Ms Ruffley was dealing with fell asleep, she phoned the class teacher, who told her to allow him to sleep for another 20 minutes. The child, who had attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, had a tendency to run from room to room when equipment was being set up, the court heard. The principal tried to gain entry three times before Ms Ruffley opened the door, which later gave rise to disciplinary action against her.
The disciplinary process, “perhaps arising from a misunderstanding”, was honestly pursued in the interest of the children and there was nothing in that process which constituted a sustained campaign maliciously pursued in order to intimidate, humiliate or denigrate Ms Ruffley, the Court found .
At worst, it was a “botched” disciplinary process and not a case of repeated offensive behaviour designed to destroy her dignity at work.
The fact the school board may have conducted an investigative and disciplinary process in a “hopelessly flawed manner” did not bring the conduct anywhere close to meeting the established definition of bullying.
Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan found there was repeated inappropriate behaviour by the principal and the board in seeking to discipline Ms Ruffley, which objectively could be reasonably regarded as undermining her right to dignity at work.
Ms Ruffley was paid €100,000 of the award pending determination of the appeal but Mr Justice Ryan said repayment of that money was not a matter for the appeal court.
Labour Court Recommends Organisation That Is 90% Funded By The HSE To Pay Salary Increments
The Labour Court has issued a recommendation in October 2015 in a dispute over salary increments owed to Employees from Ard Aoibhinn Services in Wexford who are members of the INMO (Industrial Professional Technical Union).
This Labour Court hearing came after the INMO referred this dispute to the Labour Relations Commission in May 2007 but the issue was unsuccessfully resolved.
Ard Aoibhinn Services provides for people with intellectual disabilities and special needs. The Organisation receives 90% of its funding from the HSE and it operates under Section 39 of the Health Act 2004.
Ard Aoibhinn Services claimed that due to its financial position it was not in a position to fund Employees entitlement to salary increases stating that it is:
“Not in a financial position to fund same without an increase in funding from the HSE”.
Central to this case was the subject of an Organisation that relies on resourcing from an outside authority, in this case the HSE. There has been much talk around this area in recent years where Employees have not received their entitlement with ‘lack of funding’ being cited as the reason.
The Unions in this case argued that the Employees were entitled to their salary increments in line with other Employees in the HSE.
The Labour Court conveyed “considerable sympathy” with the Wexford Company but found that it had no other choice but to acknowledge the fact that the Employees concerned in this dispute were entitled to their increments.
The Labour Court found that: “The Court has no option but to acknowledge the entitlement of the staff concerned to increments and to recommend concession of the Union claim”.
