 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Ward v Board of Governors Longstone School & Anor [2003] NIIT 1991_01 (03 June 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2003/1991_01.html Cite as: [2003] NIIT 1991_01, [2003] NIIT 1991_1 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CASE REF: 1991/01
APPLICANT: Eileen Ward
RESPONDENTS: 1. Board of Governors Longstone School
2. South Eastern Education & Library Board
The tribunal were of the unanimous opinion the contentions put forward by the Respondent that the application had no reasonable prospect of success could not be acceded to and the tribunal were of the opinion that the case should proceed to a full hearing and no Order is therefore made.
Appearances:
The applicant was represented by Ms S Bradley, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, Legal Division
The respondent was represented by Ms J Simpson, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by the Legal Service, Education & Library Board.
(i) Verbal abuse by pupil on 2 occasions on the same day.
(ii) Further verbal abuse by parent and threat of physical violence the next day.
(iii) The Respondents had failed to have in place protective measures and had not provided training or written advice to teachers.
She accepted that foresight and culpability were not the test but submitted that the Respondent had no control over the pupil in that his form of autism was not controllable. She also contended the same test applied to the parents' behaviour.
She further referred to the case Pearce –v- Governing Body of Mayfield Secondary School (2001) IRLR 675 and in particular to paragraph 35 with a reference to vicarious liability and quoted "but schools are not automatically responsible for the acts of their pupils".
She drew a distinction from the facts in the case Sidhu –v- Aerospace Composite Technology Limited (2000) IRLR 607 to the present case in that the child suffered from the behaviour problems over which there was no control. She also referred the tribunal to an extract from the case Strathclyde Regional Council –v- Porcelli (1986) IRLR 135 and submitted that the Applicant's case had no reasonable prospect of success.
It was the Applicant's case there was no adequate training for teachers in dealing with children with special needs.
Ms Bradley also referred the tribunal of the case Burton –v- De Vere Hotels and also to paragraph 37 which concluded "but in circumstances over which the employer has control, a tribunal may well find that he has subjected his employee to it".
Ms Bradley contended the Headmaster had control or should have had control and she referred the tribunal to the case Pearce –v- Governing Body of Mayfield Secondary School and in particular to paragraph 35 entitled 'The School's Responsibility'. This paragraph concludes "an employer may subject his employees to detriment of enduring discriminatory behaviour by a third party if he is in a position to prevent it happening".
She submitted that this was not a clear-cut case and the tribunal should have the chance to hear all the evidence.
Ms Simpson explained the reasons why the Particulars and Discovery had not been granted as they were under a duty to protect the pupil and were required to get parental consent. The Respondents did not have difficulty in producing some of the documents sought and proposed that Orders should be determined at a later date.
The tribunal having convened for the purpose of a pre hearing review considered it more appropriate for the parties to have a formal hearing on the issues of Particulars and Discovery following receipt of the tribunal's Decision on the pre hearing review and therefore did not make any Orders.
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing:
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: