The Equality Tribunal
Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2013
Decision DEC-S2014-001
A Mother and Father, on behalf of their Son
-v-
Board of Management of A Respondent National School
File Ref: ES/2011/0172
Date of Issue: 31 January 2014
Keywords: Equal Status Acts 2000-2013 – Educational establishments, Section 3 (2)(e ), Section 7 (2)(c), (3)(c), religious ground, prima facie case,
1. This complaint was referred to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 30 November 2011 under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2013 (hereinafter “the Acts”). In accordance with his powers under Section 75 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and under the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2008, the Director delegated the complaint to me, Valerie Murtagh, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2008. On 27 August 2013, my investigation commenced when the complaint was delegated to me. As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, an oral hearing was held on 10 December 2013 and both parties were in attendance.
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the complainants, a mother and father on behalf of their son (hereinafter “the complainant”) that he was discriminated against by the respondent National School (hereinafter “the respondent”) on the religion ground in terms of section 3 (2) (e) of the Acts in relation to being treated less favourably on grounds of religion vis a vis other pupils of the Catholic faith.
3. Summary of the Complainant’s case
3.1 The complainant commenced junior infants in September 2004 in the respondent Gaelscoil. The complainant and his parents are of the Church of Ireland faith. The complainant’s parents were informed by the Principal that the ethos of the school was Interdenominational, as in Roman Catholic (RC) and Church of Ireland (COI). The parents were informed that all faiths were welcome and would be respected though only RC religion and COI religion would be taught. In 2008, when the complainant’s class was preparing for their First Communion, a significant amount of time was spent each day on the preparation for same. The complainant’s parents asked if their son could sit at the back of one of the classes and read rather than spending all the time practising for the First Communion. They were informed by the Principal that the complainant had to participate if he was in the school but that they could remove him from the school while the other pupils were undertaking the religious preparations. The complainant’s parents submit that this was not possible as they both work full-time. The complainant’s parents took no further issue that year as they believed the difficulties would not arise again until 6th year when there would be preparations for Confirmation.
3.2 In Spring 2009, it became apparent that all the pupils in 3rd – 6th class were required and expected to participate in the practices for the First Communion/Confirmation in relation to rehearsals for choir practices. The complainant’s parents questioned the amount of time spent on Roman Catholic education and the preparation for the sacraments. They were told that if they did not like it, they are perfectly within their rights to remove their child from the school and enrol him in another school. The parents questioned why only RC teaching was covered in religious education and were told by the Principal that as the RC and COI religions are 95% the same that only covering the RC religion would be sufficient for both. In May 2009, on the evening before the First Communions/Confirmations, the complainant and his family baked and decorated fairy cakes for the teas served after the sacraments as they were happy to contribute to the event. However, the complainant did not attend the First Communion ceremony which was held in the RC church in the town on the Saturday. On Monday following the First Communion, the Principal went into the classrooms of 3rd and 4th class and asked those who did not attend the First Communion to stand over at the wall. The complainant’s parents understood that there were two children who did not attend including their son.
3.3 The complainant’s parents submit that the Principal proceeded to praise those who attended the event and gave them two nights without homework. The complainant was very upset by having to stand at the wall as if he had done something wrong and then that he did not get two nights without homework. The complainant’s parents wrote to the Principal setting out their concerns and were subsequently called to a meeting. At the meeting, they explained that it was completely unacceptable to penalise their child for not attending a religious event that had nothing to do with him and was held outside of the school and outside of the school week. The parents contend that the Principal stated to them that he had to acknowledge those who did turn up. The parents replied that those who turned up were RC and were celebrating a RC sacrament. The complainant’s parents submit that the Principal stated to the mother of the child in question that she obviously had a problem with religion. The parents state that the Principal then made some derogatory remarks about their religion referring to it in terms of the ‘rebel crowd’ who broke away from the one true religion. The parents informed the Principal that they did not want to have their child penalised again in the school for not attending a religious event that was taking place outside school time. However, they state that the Principal did not agree to this and stated that it was his school and if they did not agree with the way things were done, they could take their children out of school. They state that the Principal did inform them that if they had a problem with him giving free homework for attending a First Communion, they could sign off on their son’s homework assignments instead. They contend that they did this for their son but he was still extremely upset by the whole situation.
3.4 The parents state that during the course of the meeting, the Principal informed them that the school was left money in a will and that he was going to use it to put a Bible and a Holy Mary statue inside the front door of the school, the Bible to represent the COI religion and the Holy Mary statue to represent the RC religion. The parents argued that if the school was truly interdenominational, then surely the Bible would represent both religions. The Principal also informed them that he would be putting crosses in all the classrooms. The parents made it clear to the Principal that they objected to his proposals and if necessary would take the matter to the Equality Tribunal. The parents contend that their son was forced to participate in lengthy preparations for the First Communion both in 2010 and again in 2011 in relation to rehearsals for the choir. The Communion/Confirmation took place on 28 May 2011. On Monday 30 May, the Principal again went into 5th and 6th class and while he did not tell those who did not attend the First Communion/Confirmation to stand out at the wall, he did praise those who did attend and gave them a slip of paper stating (obair bhaile saor, free homework). The complainant felt very self-conscious and uncomfortable as if he had done something wrong by not attending the ceremonies.
3.5 The complainant’s parents are very concerned that despite being an interdenominational school that there is no proper acknowledgement and regard given to religions other than RC. They are concerned that their son was forced into participation in RC religion class and that he was punished for not attending RC events outside of school hours. The parents explained that they did not want their children feeling, as a result of the attitude and opinions of the Principal, that their religious beliefs are wrong or inferior. The parents state that following making a complaint about the Principal, the Principal started giving, what their children described as, ‘angry looks’. This then progressed to bullying and exclusion of their children whereby he would greet the child beside their child in a friendly manner and he would completely ignore their children. The parents stated that they would like that their children not be humiliated and punished for not attending Catholic sacraments and that in the lead up to these events that preparation time is minimised and that their children have the option to not participate in the practising of these events by allowing them to sit at the back of one of the classes not involved in those religious events. They also would like that the religious beliefs of their children are upheld on an equal status with the beliefs of the RC children. The mother of the complainant stated that she was of the view that religion should not be taught in schools and that this was a matter for the parents to decide upon. The parents also stated that ideally, they would like the BOM to consider re-visiting the religious ethos of the school with a view to putting in place a more inclusive ethos for the school, where children of all faiths are welcomed so as to be educated through the medium of Irish, which is the primary focus of the school.
4. Submission on behalf of respondent
4.1 A committee was formed with a view to setting up a Gaelscoil in the area in May 2000 and from this meeting, an Ad Hoc committee was established. The committee met weekly and as part of the preparation for setting up the school, investigated the question of the school’s ethos or ‘Characteristic Spirit’. To this end, they met with various bodies and individuals and eventually decided on an Interdenominational ethos under the patronage of Foras Patrunachta. This ethos was tightly framed by the founder members to mean a RC and COI ethos. This meant that the school was obliged to teach the religious instruction decided by the Catholic Bishop of the area as well as that decided by the Church of Ireland Bishop. The school was set up in 2002 and granted permanent recognition by the Department of Education & Science in 2004. The school follows the ‘Beo Go Deo’ religion series in all classes, this is the Irish language version of the Catholic religious instruction scheme as 95% of the content is similar. It was also pointed out by the respondent that extra pieces are added in from the COI programme which is called ‘Follow me’.
4.2 The respondent contends that it does not display Crucifixes as it was advised that they might offend some members of the COI. Instead in each classroom, there are large colourful crosses on display which are acceptable to both Churches. In the written submission on behalf of the respondent, it states that it believes in rewarding good behaviour and sacrifice. It states that when children attend events outside school hours and behave in an excellent manner, it believes in rewarding them. The respondent states that those who attended the Communion had given up their Saturday morning, many missing out on swimming lessons, GAA, rugby coaching or just ‘chill out’ time and this was acknowledged and rewarded. In its written submission, the respondent states that the class teacher at the time of the particular incident in question was asked about the incident and while he had a vague recollection of the day in question, he cannot remember any negative feelings being engendered. He recollects that the children who attended and behaved so well were lauded and thanked. In its written submission, the respondent states that the hymns used in choir practices can be used in both Churches and indeed have been used in both Churches. The respondent states that choir practices are also used to enhance the music education received in the classrooms. The respondent submits that homework passes were also distributed to pupils who attended Confirmation at the local Church of Ireland church.
4.3 In the written submission sent into the Tribunal, the respondent denies that the Principal stated it was his school; he may or may not have said that the parents could remove their child from the school as he has a vague recollection of the discussions that took place. The respondent also states that the Principal did not tell the complainant’s parents that the school was left money in a will but that the money came from another source. In the submission, the respondent explained that the donation was to purchase something to mark the fact that the school had moved into a permanent premises. It states that the Principal formed a small committee with representatives of the RC and COI religions to discuss how the money should be spent. The committee decided to erect a statue of the Blessed Virgin in the corridor to represent the RC tradition. They also decided that a glass fronted display case should be erected opposite this statue containing a copy of the Book of Common Prayer, as Gaeilge as the Church of Ireland clergyman who visits the school regularly requested that a copy of the Bible as Gaeilge could be displayed. It was also decided to erect a wall plaque of the school crest between these to symbolise the connection and unity of purpose of both traditions in the school.
4.4 On the day of the hearing, the Chairperson of the Board of Management and the acting Principal attended to give evidence regarding the complaint. The Chairperson, on behalf of the BOM made an unreserved apology to the complainant’s parents in relation to the alleged treatment by the Principal regarding the treatment of their son. The Chairperson explained that the previous Principal was on administrative leave and the current BOM came into being in January 2012. The Chairperson stated that she was not in a position to dispute the facts and takes on board the issues as outlined by the complainant’s parents. The Chairperson stated that at a BOM meeting in March, 2012, the board examined processes to change some of their policies and practices including an agreement that awarding passes for attendance at Communion/Confirmation was not appropriate. They also stated that they changed their procedures and pupils are not obliged to attend rehearsals for the sacraments. If the pupil does not want to avail of the sacraments, s/he is facilitated to remain in the school and engage in reading or other project work which is supervised in another class.
4.5 The Chairperson stated that the BOM has a COI representative on the Board and representatives on the BOM were deeply hurt by the treatment of the complainant by the Principal. The Chairperson stated that staff of the school are very respectful to both religions. The Chairperson profusely apologised to the parents on behalf of the BOM for the impact the treatment had on their son and on them as parents. However, the Chairperson stated that as a result of the parents complaint, the Board is addressing a myriad of issues but she states that the matter is complex and will take time to change the policies but that change has indeed commenced. The Chairperson outlined that the BOM is made up of volunteers and the various individuals are giving up their time and attending meetings on a committee; they are determined to improve their policies and procedures so that the school has an open observance towards inclusion and diversity. The Chairperson stated that it is not within the gift of the BOM to change the religious ethos of the school with a view to enrolling children of all faiths. At the time the school was set up, various meetings took place with the relevant personnel and interest groups and it was decided following these extensive meetings and input that the school would have an Interdenominational ethos under the patronage of Foras Patrunachta. This ethos was tightly framed by the founder members to mean a RC and COI ethos and the BOM is not in a position to make changes to the school’s patronage.
5. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
5.1 The matter referred for investigation was whether or not the complainant was discriminated against on the religion ground contrary to the Equal Status Acts. In reaching my decision, I have taken into account all the written submissions and oral testimony made to me by the parties in the course of my investigation into the complaint. Section 3(1)(a) provides, inter alia, that discrimination shall be taken to occur where:
3.- (1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur—
(a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘discriminatory grounds)’’
Section 7 (2) (c ) covers Educational establishments and states “that an educational establishment shall not discriminate in relation to – (c ) any other term or condition of participation in the establishment by a student”
Section 7 (3) (c ) states that an educational establishment does not discriminate under subsection (2) by reason only that -
“where the establishment is a school providing primary or post-primary education to students and the objective of the school is to provide education in an environment which promotes certain religious values, it admits persons of a particular religious denomination in preference to others or it refuses to admit as a student who is not of that denomination and, in the case of a refusal, it is proved that the refusal is essential to maintain the ethos of the school,”
Section 38A (1) provides that the burden of proof is:
" Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary."
It requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which he can rely in asserting that prohibited conduct has occurred. Therefore, the complainant must first establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment and it is only when a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination.
5.2 Having examined all the evidence in relation to the complaint, I am satisfied that the complainant was treated less favourably on the grounds of his religion in relation to being penalised by the Principal and requested to stand at the side of the class for not attending the First Communion on the previous Saturday. I am also satisfied that the Principal gave free homework passes to the children who did attend the Communion thereby causing deep upset to the complainant. I also accept, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the Principal did exclude and isolate the parents children, in that, the complainant’s parents described the angry looks expressed by the Principal to their children and that he would greet the other pupils and ignore their children. I questioned the parents in relation to their daughter who was attending the school in the intervening period and the manner in which she is being treated in relation to participation in the sacraments and attending choir practices for the ceremonies; the parents informed me that their daughter expressed her interest in participating in the ceremonies including the choir practices and they had no issue with this. The school at this stage had dispensed with giving out free homework passes for attendance at Communion/Confirmation ceremonies. I also note from the respondent’s submission that, at the material time of the complaint, homework passes were also distributed to pupils who attended Confirmation at the local Church of Ireland church.
5.3 On examination of all the evidence in relation to this complaint and the detailed testimony given by the parents of the complainant, I find that the complainant and his parents were deeply hurt and upset by the treatment of the Principal towards them. I find that the complainant has demonstrated prima facie evidence of discriminatory treatment on grounds of religion and the respondent has failed to rebut the presumption of discrimination. I also find that the two representatives from the school, the Chairperson and the acting Principal, were very frank and open on the day of the hearing and did not dispute any of the testimony of the complainant’s parents. The Chairperson gave an unreserved apology on behalf of the BOM for the upset caused to the complainant and his parents and deeply acknowledged the hurt and upset caused. In addition, she stated that the complaint was a landmark event, in that, the BOM undertook a process of change in order to re-examine their policies and procedures including ensuring that no other child will be subjected to such behaviour. The Chairperson outlined that the BOM is made up of volunteers and the various individuals give up their time to attend meetings and are driven to ensure that their policies and procedures are fair and that the school has an open observance towards inclusion and diversity.
5.4 The Chairperson stated that a decision was taken by the BOM that awarding passes for attendance at Communion/Confirmation was not appropriate. She also stated that the school has changed its procedures and pupils are not obliged to attend rehearsals for the sacraments. If a pupil does not want to avail of the sacraments, s/he is facilitated to remain in the school and engage in reading or other project work which is supervised in another class. Having taken the testimony of the acting Principal and the Chairperson of the BOM, I am satisfied that the BOM has taken substantial measures to instigate change and improve its procedures to ensure that its policies are fair and that no other child is subject to the behaviour that the complainant experienced. In that regard, I am satisfied that the changes as outlined above by the Chairperson and the acting Principal have been implemented accordingly. I also accept the point made by the Chairperson of the BOM that the BOM is not in a position to change the patronage of the school as laid down by the founding members of the school which is an Interdenominational ethos under the patronage of Foras Patrunachta. I have no power under the Acts to make an order that the BOM change the ethos of the school.
6. Decision
6.1 In reaching my decision I have taken into account all the submissions, written and oral that were made to me. In accordance with section 25(4) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008, I conclude this investigation and issue the following decision.
6.2 I find that the respondent discriminated against the complainant on the grounds of religion. In accordance with the provisions of the Acts, I award the sum of €750 in respect of the effects of the discriminatory treatment. I also order that the respondent reviews its policies and procedures to ensure that they are in line with and comply with the provisions of the Equal Status Acts and that a notice to this effect is placed in a prominent position within the school.
Valerie Murtagh
Equality Officer
31 January 2014