School board broke rules in job case

The High Court has ruled that the board of management of a national school in Dublin acted unlawfully and outside its powers …

The High Court has ruled that the board of management of a national school in Dublin acted unlawfully and outside its powers in the selection of a principal teacher.

The proceedings were brought by Phyllis Brown, who has been a deputy principal at Rathfarnham Parish National School for nearly 30 years. She claimed the person who got the job in 2004 submitted a late application. She challenged the appointment on this and other grounds.

The proceedings were also brought against the school patron, the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, Dr John Neill, and the Department of Education.

Ms Brown, Sandyford Road, Dundrum, Dublin, has been a teacher for 33 years. She claimed the board of management acted unreasonably and oppressively in deeming the other person a valid candidate for appointment to the post.

READ MORE

Ms Brown had been deputy principal since 1977. She applied for the position of principal when it became vacant and her application was in by the closing date of November 1st, 2004.

A board of management meeting was later told there were four applicants and three were to be interviewed. Ms Brown attended for interview on November 30th, 2004, at around 3pm. Three hours later she was told she had been unsuccessful and the position had been awarded to another candidate.

Responding to the ruling, the INTO's John Carr said the judgment "makes clear that the rules and constitution of boards of management have the force of law. Boards of management do not have the right to apply these rules as they see fit. Their application is not discretionary but mandatory."

Ms Brown deserved great credit for her courage in taking this case, he said.

The INTO said the ruling showed how the board of management broke the rules on several points. "Applicants for the post were not supplied with details of the established criteria for the post.

"The board did not receive a written report from the selection board. A late application for the post was accepted."

In its ruling yesterday the court also said that the board acted unlawfully and ultra vires in allowing a relative of the successful candidate to participate in the decision-making process.