Decision to reject Templeogue teacher’s grievance appeal was not ‘done deal’, says former chief inspector

A former chief inspector of schools has denied that the decision to reject a grievance appeal made by a former teacher at Templeogue College was a “done deal” between himself and the school’s representative organisation.

Eamon Stack, now an independent education consultant, was under questioning on Tuesday at the Workplace Relations Commission after lawyers acting for the teacher, Jennifer Clancy, produced emails he sent to the Joint Managerial Body (JMB) – the industry group for religious-run schools – in the weeks before and after an appeal hearing he chaired in November 2022.

In statutory complaints, Ms Clancy, a part-time Spanish teacher, has alleged she was penalised as a whistleblower for putting her name to a collective staff grievance about the management of the south Dublin boys’ secondary school run by the Spiritan Education Trust.

The complaint included concerns over health and safety and the loss of staff facilities and student discipline, including an alleged assault on one teacher and the secret filming of another female teacher’s “backside”, the WRC has been told.

Last Friday, Templeogue College’s lawyers said its principal, Niamh Quinn, would not appear as a witness to contradict Ms Clancy’s evidence that she found her timetable for the school year starting September 2022 had been changed requiring her to teach in the afternoons, contrary to a deal Ms Clancy said had been a condition of her taking the job to facilitate childcare.

Ms Clancy has told the WRC Ms Quinn was “frenzied” and “extremely unsavoury” towards her at a meeting she sought about the timetable change. Later, the principal served her with notice of disciplinary action, without ever telling what she was being accused of, Ms Clancy added.

Both of these matters were part of the grievance that was appealed to a panel consisting of a one nominee from Ms Clancy’s trade union, the ASTI, another by the JMB, and Mr Stack as its independent chair, the WRC heard.

A series of emails between Mr Stack and an employee of the Joint Managerial Body, obtained by Ms Clancy’s lawyers, were opened to a hearing on Tuesday. When these were put to Ms Clancy in evidence on a previous date, she expressed the view that Mr Stack had “skin in the game” as he was hearing her appeal.

In one of the emails, Mr Stack told the JMB employee he had received a letter from Ms Clancy’s then-solicitor asking that the grievance appeal panel be dissolved, and said he would “need clear guidance from you on where to go from here from a legal perspective”, the tribunal was told.

Questioning Mr Stack, Ms Clancy’s barrister, Conor Duff BL, asked: “You gave evidence about neutrality and fairness. How do you think Ms Clancy felt reading that email?” asked.

“It’s impossible for me to respond to Ms Clancy’s thinking at that time,” the witness said.

Asked by Mr Duff whether it would be “usual practice” to enter into this kind of correspondence, Mr Stack said it would be “occasional”.

“Is this kind of email the reason you’re so popular with [the JMB employee]? Is this email totemic, or is this the reason you’re a very popular education consultant?” Mr Duff asked.

“I reject the context of that question, especially the last section, attacking me,” Mr Stack said.

“Answer it,” Mr Duff said.

“My connection and [the JMB employee]’s connection with me was on behalf of two organisations, the ASTI and the JMB, not my popularity,” Mr Stack said. He later added that the JMB dealt with him “for both parties” for “operational reasons” and that his understanding was that there was an agreement between the ASTI and the JMB for this.

He said he had met the JMB staff member “informally” at the JMB conference in the past.

Mr Duff also put it to Mr Stack that he had written again to the JMB employee after the grievance panel had concluded, stating: “All good news, all now done and dusted.”

At the same stage, counsel said, Mr Stack’s response to Ms Clancy’s solicitor asking for clarification on the panel’s decision had been: “I’m functus officio, I cannot tell you what the decision means.”

“Well, that was in context. ‘All good news,’ in the sense that it was over,” Mr Stack said.

Mr Duff put it to him that his client’s view was that the witness had “skin in the game” and asked him for his response to her statement.

“I don’t understand what it means,” Mr Stack said.

Under cross-examination from counsel for the school, Rosemary Mallon BL, Mr Stack that he was one of a panel of individuals approved by both the ASTI and the JMB to chair teachers’ grievance and disciplinary tribunals.

“Have the ASTI ever questioned your independence?” Ms Mallon asked him.

“No, not that I’m aware of. They’ve never questioned me, anyway,” Mr Stack said.

“It is being implied, Mr Stack, that this stage four grievance was effectively a done deal between yourself and the JMB, that you weren’t being independent, that you were following the advice, requirements and direction of the JMB and that was what your role was, and therefore Ms Clancy didn’t have a chance,” Ms Mallon said.

“Yes, it’s both untrue and unfair,” Mr Stack said.

Ms Clancy’s complaints alleging penalisation were brought under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014, the Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.

The school management denies any breach, with Ms Mallon arguing that the reappointment form was not part of the teacher’s contract of employment, another point of legal debate in proceedings before the tribunal.