WRC Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal on Grounds of Professional Competence

The Workplace Relations Commission has affirmed a school’s dismissal of a teacher on professional competence grounds. This decision is one of the first WRC cases addressing a competence-based dismissal relating to teachers. Our Education Law team reviews the decision.

What you need to know

• The WRC considered an unfair dismissal claim brought by a teacher who was dismissed on the grounds of professional competence under Circular 49/2018.
• The hearing, which lasted over 10 days, examined the school’s adherence to the structured five-stage process outlined in the Circular. Central to the case was an external review conducted by a Department of Education inspector, who carried out multiple visits to the school to assess the teacher’s performance.
• The WRC ultimately upheld the dismissal, finding that the school had followed procedures and acted reasonably in concluding the teacher’s performance was unsatisfactory.

Background

The WRC reaffirmed that it is possible for a teacher in Ireland to be dismissed on the grounds of professional incompetence.

The respondent school alleged that the teacher involved:

• Lacked discipline in the classroom
• Failed to fulfil her tasks and obligations, and
• Did not engage with parents, other staff or the wider school community.

The WRC heard evidence from members of the school’s Board of Management (BOM) as well as an inspector from the Department of Education and chairperson from the Disciplinary Appeal Panel.

The teacher alleged that she had been unfairly dismissed and that her dismissal arose out of interpersonal relationship difficulties among staff.

The respondent school was able to satisfy that her dismissal on the grounds of professional incompetence was fair and justified. It provided that it engaged with each step of five-stage dismissal procedure for teachers, as set out in Circular 49/2018. This sets outs a lengthy process designed to safeguard teachers from unfair dismissal, while also giving schools a pathway to dismissal, or other disciplinary action, when issues of incompetence arise.

The five-stage process of dismissing a teacher

The WRC laid out the five-stage process which must be followed to dismiss a teacher on incompetence grounds. Each stage of the process must be completed before the next stage can commence. The only exception to this rule is that the teacher may choose to expedite proceedings to stage three within 10 days of the commencement of stage two.

WRC decision in this case

The adjudication officer found in favour of the school and reminded the parties that it is the duty of a school principal to initiate the Circular once professional incompetence issues have been identified. The adjudication officer commented that the Circular staunchly protects the rights of teachers. She commended the school for its commitment to engage with the complainant throughout the process, regardless of the unwillingness of the complainant to engage.

The adjudication officer also noted that the Complainant’s response to criticisms that were laid against her, from the very start of the process, was defensive and that this remained a feature until the process was complete. This included making bullying allegations against the school principal which were denied. The adjudication officer noted that the teacher spent little time actively listening to the critical feedback that she was receiving from the principal.

Of critical note, it was highlighted that the teacher did not seek a review of the inspector’s findings which categorised the teacher’s competencies as being weak in all areas.

The adjudication officer noted that the result of the findings was that the BOM then had to deal with the inspector’s findings which were highly critical and not contested. The adjudication officer stated she was satisfied that the findings of the inspector became “a line in the sand.” In addition, as much as the teacher had tried to unravel perceived inequities that occurred before the Inspector’s report during the adjudication, the reality is that his findings were not appealed. Also the Circular does not permit an unravelling of an inspector’s findings if the opportunity to review or appeal the report was offered but not availed of. If it had been availed of the flaws, as perceived, could have been addressed.

The adjudication officer, in finding for the school, stated that based on the inspector’s findings, it was difficult to see how the BOM had any option other than to respond in the most serious way. That was to proceed to disciplinary action. The adjudication officer ultimately found that the dismissal was fair and proportionate.

Conclusion

The key takeaway from this decision is that the WRC has stated that there is a constitutional right to an appropriate education. This right is afforded to every child within the State. The adjudication officer stated that the quality of teaching in the early years has particular significance for SEN children because of the positive impact that early intervention has. If there is evidence of an ongoing failure by a teacher to provide an appropriate standard of education to children in their care, Circular 49/2018 provides the process for a BOM, to address that ongoing failure.

There are multiple protections in place for teachers throughout the process. It is important for BOMs to strictly follow the guidance of the Department of Education. They must also respect the safeguards which have been put in place.

For more informative and expert advice in navigating this tricky process, contact a member of our Education Law team.

People also ask

The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.