Dismissed principal secures court orders to stop her being replaced

A primary school principal dismissed over alleged “inappropriate behaviour” towards two pupils has obtained High Court orders preventing the school board of management replacing her or advertising her replacement.

The woman had been principal of a small school for the last 20 years and a special needs assistant (SNA) last year made allegations against her over the “rough holding” of one of the pupils and verbal abuse of another.

These allegations were later downgraded to “inappropriate behaviour”. The principal, who was suspended, refutes the allegations.

The matter was referred to Tusla, the Child and Family Agency, which said it had not reached a stage for it to be involved and that was the end of the matter, Peter Ward SC, for the principal, told the court on Wednesday.

The allegations were at the “very minor end of the inappropriate behaviour spectrum”, counsel said.

He was making a one-side only represented application to the court for leave to bring judicial review proceedings aimed at quashing the dismissal decision.

Mr Justice Charles Meenan granted leave and ordered no steps be taken to replace or advertise the plaintiff’s replacement.

He also gave liberty to the board of management to apply to lift the orders on replacing her before the case returns to court next week.

No findings

In seeking leave, Mr Ward said, after the Tusla examination, the school board appointed its own investigator who made no findings but provided statements from others in the school, including those which were supportive of the principal.

After this, the board held a six hour disciplinary hearing and voted five to nil to dismiss her in a secret ballot. While the principal’s union representative was present, she was not.

There were no questions asked about her behaviour but the original SNA complainant gave an account of what she saw, counsel said. It was at this stage the allegations were downgraded to inappropriate behaviour rather than physical and verbal abuse, counsel said.

In its decision, the board said she was dismissed because of gross misconduct and that the children had blossomed since she was suspended, although that was disputed, counsel said.

Under Department of Education rules, she was entitled to appeal to a specially appointed appeals panel, which she did. That panel condemned what had occurred, saying proper procedures were not adhered to, and it recommended her immediate reinstatement. However, the board refused to do so.

Counsel said case law previously found recommendations from such panels should only be departed from for very good reasons and there were none in this case. His client was claiming the decision to refuse to accept the panel’s decision was not properly exercised, unfair, unreasonable and a breach of her constitutional rights.