€32,000 was awarded in a recent decision from the EAT where a Montessori school unfairly dismissed its former school principle.
However what makes this case somewhat noteworthy is that according to the Tribunal, the procedures used in the run up to the dismissal were “unsatisfactory”, and it appears that the Tribunal have penalised the employers for the employee’s failure to invoke the appeals process despite pointing out that the employee was not compelled to invoke this process.
Background
The case of Caroline McGrillen v Glebe Junior Montessori School Trust Ltd – UD 919/2011, revolved around an employee, who has 22 years teaching experience, who was placed on administrative leave, following concerns that the Montessori method was not being adhered to in her classroom.
The working relationship between here and the vice-principal was then irretrievably damaged, after the vice principle prepared a report on each child at the school, which the employee felt was an effort to undermine her position as principal, and felt duty bound to inform the board of this.
The Board took action as the employee handed the vice principle a copy of the letter she sent to board, which contained the suggestion that the vice-principle step down from her position but remain on as a teacher. The board considered her request for the removal of the vice-principal as “an extremely serious matter”, and was “serious misconduct” justifying the termination of her employment.
The employee was given the option to appeal the decision to dismiss within seven days however did not appeal as she “had no faith in the appeals process”.
Determination
The Tribunal took the view that the procedures used were unsatisfactory, which in this case seem to be correct as the employees behaviour most likely warranted disciplinary action, but dismissal was possibly excessive. However had the Board looked into potential mediation between the principle and vice principle the issue could have been avoided.
“The Tribunal finds that the procedures used by the respondent were unsatisfactory. While the claimant was not compelled to invoke the appeal process the Tribunal finds that it would have been helpful. Taking all the matters into consideration the Tribunal finds that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awards her €32,500.00 under the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 to 2007.”
The Tribunals lack of detail in the decision is unhelpful however as it does not pinpoint what exactly was incorrect about the procedures. The only reference they make is to the employee not utilising the appeals process even though the employer submitted that
“The claimant was afforded a right to appeal the decision to dismiss her within seven days of this letter.”
This case could have an impact on employers in so far as even where procedures are offered to employees and they fail to utilise these, a tribunal may still rule in favour of an employee, which is wholly incorrect.
