EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM OF: CASE NO.
Employee UD1096/2012
against
Employer
under
UNFAIR DISMISSALS ACTS, 1977 TO 2007
I certify that the Tribunal
(Division of Tribunal)
Chairman: Mr G. Hanlon
Members: Mr W. Power
Mr F. Barry
heard this claim at Dublin on 1st November 2013
Representation:
Claimant : Mr Bernard Moynihan, ASTI,
Thomas MacDonagh House, Winetavern Street, Dublin 8
Respondent : Mr Brian Foley B L instructed by
Mason Hayes & Curran, Solicitors, South Bank House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4
The determination of the Tribunal was as follows:
Claimant’s Case
Apart from having a commerce degree the claimant also had a master’s in education and other academic qualifications. He was the author of a number of educational textbooks. In addition to his educational credentials the claimant had gained senior management experience outside the formal schooling environment. He commenced employment as a teacher in a Vincentian school in the north side of Dublin in August 1977 and worked there in a fulltime capacity up to his departure in the early summer of 2012. From 2000 to the autumn of 2005 the claimant was on a career break from that school. He held several posts during his time at the school from teacher to year head and acting deputy principal. The claimant actively participated in social and group events concerning the school. Overall he felt his contribution was worthwhile, beneficial and progressive and that his influence and impact on the school was positive. The claimant was a strong supporter of the Order and its ethos.
When the claimant returned to the school following his career break he found the atmosphere there less than harmonious. A sizeable number of teachers formed a grievance group whose main aim was to dislodge the principal. The claimant refused to sign their grievance letter drafted in early 2009 and generally did not support their methodology. As a result of that stance the claimant felt ostracised and targeted by this group. He felt and acted on a different approach which he claimed resulted in a better run school. However, the dispute between the grievance group and others lingered on to such an extent that a facilitator was needed to try to resolve issues between the parties. The facilitator and the representative group submitted their report to the board of management in late November 2011. The claimant was dismayed at the input and recognition that the grievance group received and made him feel isolated from his colleagues.
Around the same time a leading member of that grievance group was appointed as a year head. That appointed was made by the chair of the board of management. That same teacher was elected shortly afterwards as the chair of the year head council. The claimant told the Tribunal that this teacher then directly threatened him at the inaugural meeting of that council on 9 December 2011. As a consequence he wrote to the chair of the board of management expressing his dissatisfaction at how events were unfolding. At this stage the claimant felt he had lost the support of that board.
The deputy principal notified all concerned that he was resigning at the end of February 2012. There was a scheme at the time within the public service to allow employees to retire with more favourable pension entitlements than what they would receive post February 2012. An interview panel was formed to select and recommend a candidate for that post. The claimant who was one of several interviewees was unhappy that the facilitator was prominently placed on that panel. Upon formal notification that he was unsuccessful in securing the post of deputy principal the claimant wrote to the chair of the board of management on 10 February 2012 appealing the appointment of the incoming deputy. That incoming deputy was the chair of the year head council and a leading member of the grievance group.
As a consequence of that appointment the claimant reasoned that his position, status, influence, and input into the running and management of his teaching and ancillary roles would now be even further compromised and seriously damaged. He described that appointment as getting “a dagger in the back” and added that his refusal to sign the grievance letter was used against him when applying for the post of deputy principal.
Some thirteen days later the claimant again contacted the chair of the board of management regarding his appeal letter. The claimant did not accept the respondent’s excuse for the delay in responding to that letter. The chair wrote that this appeal letter had been mislaid. It emerged, however, that there was no right or mechanism for appeals regarding appointments of deputy principals. On 26 February 2012 the claimant wrote a two-line letter to the secretary of the board of management who was also the principal. That letter clearly stated his intention to resign his current position with the school at the end of that month. In a separate letter dated the same day and to the same person the claimant requested that he would like to address the board of management. The claimant then wrote a third letter the following day to the chair of the board of management informing him that he wished to initiate the grievance procedure against the board of management. That letter also informed the recipient of his intention to lodge a case for constructive dismissal.
The claimant justified his involuntary resignation on the grounds that his position within the respondent was untenable. An injustice had been done in the way the board of management was treating him. The interview board was improperly assembled and consisted of a person who was not independent as stated by the respondent. The appointment of a new deputy principal undermined him at the school as that person was openly hostile towards him. All these issues caused considerable stress to the claimant.
While his resignation took effect from 29 February 2012 the claimant continued to teach at the school up to late May in a local arrangement capacity only.
Respondent’s Case
A member of the board of management was present at the inaugural year head meeting on 9 December 2011 had no recollection of threats being made against the claimant. She was also part of the five person interview panel connected with the process of appointing a deputy principal. This witness said that the facilitator was elected chair of that panel and he acted in a completely independent way.
In accepting that the facilitator had an earlier and recent relationship with the school the chairperson of the board of management stated that neither the respondent nor the interview were prejudiced against the claimant. His contribution to the school was appreciated and the neither respondent nor panel had received any complaints against him. This witness who was also present at the meeting of 12 December and had no memory of threats made against there or indeed at any other meeting or by any person.
This witness acknowledged he received the claimant’s appeal letter on 10 February, set it aside at the time and forgot to attend to it. Once this was brought to his attention he then responded promptly.
The facilitator was appointed in that role in September 2011 and among other activities in that capacity had what he described as a pleasant conversation with claimant a month later regarding issues at the school. This witness who was retired from teaching only involved himself with school matters when invited to do so. He was also present at the meeting on 12 December and had no memory of threatening comments reportedly made by the soon- to-be appointed deputy principal towards the claimant.
He had no reservations about his participation in the interview process for deputy principal and regarded himself as independent and external to the school. He labelled that process as equitable and fair.
The principal and secretary to the board of management formed part of the interview panel. The claimant made no objection to the personnel on that panel. This witness was not aware that the claimant did not sign a grievance letter connected with a group of other teachers within the school. He had no knowledge that some staff members were attempting to discredit the claimant. He confirmed that the claimant remained in the school in order to finish teaching certain classes.
Determination
In constructive dismissals cases the onus is on the claimant to clearly show that there was no other reasonable option to take other than vacate their employment. In order to achieve that goal it must be demonstrated that all other reasonable alternative options had been tried, tested and exhausted before that final step of self-ceasing their employment. Having heard and considered all the adduced evidence the Tribunal finds that the claimant has not discharged that onus.
The Tribunal accepts and acknowledges the claimant’s positive contribution to the school, its staff and students. His involvement in education went beyond a job and into the realms of a vocation. His commitment, dedication and professionalism are not in doubt. It is a highly serious matter to opt to resign unwillingly from your employment. One must look first and foremost to oneself and truly reflect whether that action is actually constructive. The decision of the claimant was neither constructive to him, the school, the respondent and others.
The claim under the Unfair Dismissal Acts, 1977 to 2007 falls.
Sealed with the Seal of the
Employment Appeals Tribunal
This ________________________
(Sgd.) ________________________
(CHAIRMAN)