A €255,000 award over alleged bullying of a school special needs assistant has been overturned by a two to one majority in the Court of Appeal.
The High Court had made the award - comprising €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.
Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill, in making the award, described as “severe” and “unmerited” her treatment in what he found was persistent inappropriate behaviour, which wholly undermined her dignity at work.
Allowing the school’s appeal, Mr Justice Seán Ryan, president of the Court of Appeal, said if the High Court decision was allowed stand, it would widen the legal definition of bullying “to all kinds of situations it was never intended to cover”.
Agreeing, Ms Justice Mary Irvine said she was not satisfied Ms Ruffley was subjected to inappropriate conduct which was repeated and had the effect of undermining her dignity in the workplace for over a year.
Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan, dissenting, said the High Court judge correctly found repeated inappropriate behaviour by and on behalf of the school but added she would have reduced the award by €47,000 to about €208,000, in the absence of a claim being made for future loss of earnings.
Exclusively devoted
Ms Ruffley worked for 14 years at the school which is exclusively devoted to children with special needs.
Her case arose out of an incident on September 14th, 2009, when Ms Ruffley was with a pupil in the school’s “sensory room”, used for one-to-one development of a child’s sensory perception.
At issue in 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) 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 moves against her.
Mr Justice Ryan said Ms Ruffley should have known, as an experienced SNA, not to lock the door.
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, he said.
Her trade union representative, who would have been “most alert as to bullying”, did not suggest this was the case, he said.
‘Botched’ process
At worst, it was a “botched” disciplinary process and not a case of repeated offensive behaviour designed to destroy her dignity at work.
“The definition of bullying has to be stretched beyond breaking point to fit this case,” he said.
Ms Justice Irvine said the evidence did not support “the type of calibrated inappropriateness which distinguishes bullying from other types of workplace wrongs”.
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 said 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.
Costs issues were adjourned to January.