Authority orders teacher reinstated after suspension…

The Employment Relations Authority has recently accepted a teacher’s application for interim reinstatement after she was suspended pending a workplace investigation.

The teacher had worked as the principal of a school for 14 years. The school’s Board of Trustees undertook a disciplinary investigation as a result of “disharmony” in “management and governance” at the school. 

A Commissioner was later appointed in place of the Board of Trustees. The investigation provided critical comments on the principal’s leadership. The principal undertook training to solve these issues. 

While on sabbatical further concerns were raised about the principal. She was then suspended by the Commissioner pending an investigation into the concerns. 

The principal applied to the Authority for interim reinstatement. 

The Authority had to consider:

1. Whether the principal had an arguable case for unjustified disadvantage and permanent reinstatement;
2. Where the balance of convenience lay; and 
3. Where the overall justice of the case lay while the disciplinary process was being resolved. 

The Authority first considered whether the principal had an arguable case of unjustified disadvantage. The Authority considered that the Commissioner had arguably not complied with the suspension requirements under the principal’s employment agreement. This included a lack of inquiry by the Commissioner. 

The Commissioner had also failed to follow the necessary process for dealing with health and safety concerns, which were one of the concerns raised against the principal. Therefore, the suspension was arguably unlawful, and the principal had an arguable case of unjustified disadvantage. 

The Authority then considered whether it was feasible or practicable to order reinstatement. This required considering whether appropriate measures could be implemented if the principal worked while the disciplinary process was undertaken.

The principal stated that she was supportive of the disciplinary process and would be willing to work even in a limited capacity. The Authority did not find any evidence that the disciplinary process concerned protected disclosure or serious misconduct. 

The Authority also considered that the principal had worked at the school for 14 years, and she had previously cooperated with the Commissioner to improve her practice when concerns had been raised. Therefore, the principal had an arguable case for reinstatement.

The Authority also concluded that the principal could not be adequately compensated by damages, given the reputational harm she suffered as a result of the suspension. The balance of convenience therefore lay with interim reinstatement being allowed. 

Finally, the Authority concluded that the overall justice of the case supported upholding the Commissioner’s obligations under the employment agreement. As the suspension was arguably unlawful, this supported interim reinstatement.

The Authority ultimately accepted the principal’s application for interim reinstatement and ordered that the suspension be lifted immediately. 

This case acts as a reminder of the importance of knowing your rights and obligations under an employment agreement. If you are confused about these, or think you have been treated unfairly, it pays to seek advice from a professional with experience in the area. 

Leading law firms committed to helping clients cost-effectively will have a range of fixed-price Initial Consultations to suit most people’s needs in quickly learning what their options are.  At Rainey Collins we have an experienced team who can answer your questions and put you on the right track.