A Cavan primary school has been ordered to pay €20,000 compensation to one of its teachers after it penalised her concerning her application for parental leave when seeking the post of Deputy Principal.
In the case, Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) Adjudicator, Shay Henry has ordered the Board of Management of Farnham National School pay school teacher Paulette Leonard €20,000 for penalising her contrary to the Parental Leave Act.
Ms Leonard had argued that, resulting from her interaction with both the Chairperson of the Board of Management and the Principal, Geraldine Dolan on the Parental Leave issue, there was a bias against her in the interview for Deputy Principal.
The school denied this but in his findings, Mr Henry found that the only conclusion he can draw from the raising of the incidents surrounding Ms Leonard’s application for Parental Leave during an interview board preparatory meeting, was that this was considered relevant to her application for the post of Deputy Principal, and not positively.
Mr Henry stated that in his evidence the independent assessor on the job interview board, Vincent Mulvey, confirmed that, during a preparatory meeting for the interviews, one or other of the school’s representatives on the selection board raised the issue of the interaction which had taken place between management and Ms Leonard in relation to her application for parental leave.
The independent assessor understood this to be background information relevant to the candidate.
Mr Henry concluded that Ms Leonard has been treated unfairly arising from her exercising her entitlements under the Parental Leave Act.
Ms Leonard has worked as a primary school teacher at Farnham NS since 1996 and in early 2020 applied to Farnham NS seeking six periods of parental leave.
However, on June 12th 2020, the school Board of Management (BoM) initially rejected Ms Leonard’s application. At the time, the school had 16 staff members and 226 pupils.
In July, the school did grant Ms Leonard conditional parental leave on six different dates during the 2020/21 school year but the INTO complained that the position taken by the BoM in the conditions attached was in breach of Ms Leonard's rights.
On December 3rd 2020, Ms Leonard submitted her job application for the vacant post of Deputy Principal role.
Deputy Principal role
Ms Leonard was interviewed for the role of Deputy Principal on December 15th, 2020 by a panel comprising the Principal, the BoM Chairperson, and independent assessor.
On behalf of Ms Leonard, the INTO argued that in the circumstances, and in light of the protracted period of parental leave application dispute which had not been resolved as at the date of the interview, it was entirely inappropriate for the Principal and Chairperson to sit on the interview panel for the Deputy Principal role.
The INTO submitted that there was a bias against Ms Leonard as part of the Deputy Principal recruitment process which can reasonably be attributed to a subconscious bias in the Principal and Chairperson’s participation in the process as a direct result of Ms Leonard applying for parental leave, an application which the BoM was clearly not favourable to.
At interview, the INTO submitted that some of the questions were put to throw Ms Leonard off due to this subconscious bias as a form of penalisation related to her parental leave application and to favour the eventual successful candidate who did not apply for parental leave in that school year or prior to that interview.
The INTO submitted that Ms Leonard suffered acts of penalisation for asserting statutory rights, and rights under the Parental Leave Act 1998.
In response, the school stated that both candidates for the post of Deputy Principal were asked the same questions at interview.
The school stated that Ms Leonard was unsuccessful not because she had applied for parental leave; she simply did not perform as well as the other candidate at interview.
They said the successful candidate gave better answers, she provided more examples of what she had done in the past, and she had a Master’s in Leadership and Management which came across in her answers.
The school stated that Ms Leonard appealed the decision to the Board of Arbitration and her appeal was rejected.
The school stated that in relation to the claim of penalisation Ms Leonard has singularly failed to provide any link between the detriment complained of and the seeking of parental leave.
The school contended that Ms Leonard has not established any link between being allegedly penalised and the fact that she sought parental leave - and was granted same - many months earlier. Ms Leonard
They stated that on examining her claim form no causal link has been established.
The school stated that this is pure speculation on Ms Leonard’s part.
They stated that if Ms Leonard had any real concerns about the composition of the interview panel she would have objected from the outset – she did not.
