A teacher warned by her school's board of management that she should not harass another teacher who had made a complaint against her, nor harass any other member of the school staff, was held by the High Court yesterday to have chosen an inappropriate legal route to challenge that warning.
Mary Becker, Avondale Park, Blackrock, Co Dublin, had legally challenged the warning in proceedings against the board of management of St Dominic's secondary school, Cabra, Dublin. Ms Becker has taught at the school for 25 years.
Giving judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the case could not be regarded as one appropriate to relief by way of judicial review.
The judge said Ms Becker had in 1999 challenged a decision by the school board to promote a teacher to be assistant principal in circumstances where, she claimed, there were three other members of the staff more senior than the person appointed. After that, matters took a turn for the worse.
Ms Becker was alleging that the chairperson of the board had never forgiven her for challenging the appointment and was now biased against her. She also alleged that from May 2000, relations with the principal also began to deteriorate.
Allegations of harassment and bullying by Ms Becker were made by another teacher, the judge said.
Ms Becker denied these, saying they had caused her stress. She had invoked the school's grievance procedure on the advice of her trade union in September 2001, but claimed that procedure had not advanced beyond the second stage.
Ms Becker also claimed she had not been appointed assistant principal in spite of four separate applications.
She also began other proceedings in the High Court out of what she alleged was the "principal's continuous bullying and harassment of [her] and the board of management failure to provide a safe and healthy work environment in the school".
Mr Justice Peart said there could be no doubt that teaching was one of the most important functions in any democracy.
However, there was a distinction to be drawn between the wider aspects of education and the narrower aspects of this particular case, such as the employer/employee relationship between Ms Becker and the school board.
He said he drew an important distinction between the public functions of the school in the provision of education to the public and what might be described as the private functions of the school, such as hiring and firing.
Ms Becker's dispute could not be regarded as one appropriate to relief by judicial review.