Manager reported claims of financial and legal wrongdoing at Wilson’s Hospital School

Seán McCárthaigh

An employment tribunal has ruled that the Westmeath co-educational school where teacher Enoch Burke worked did not penalise an employee who made a series of protected disclosures highlighting alleged irregularities, including fraudulent pay claims and data protection breaches.

The former head of facilities, Siobhán Rogers, at Wilson’s Hospital School in Multyfarnham, Co Westmeath, claimed she had been demoted, isolated in her role, subjected to ongoing inappropriate behaviour, and had many of her duties removed, in breach of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

The Workplace Relations Commission heard the school accepted that Rogers made multiple disclosures during her employment, but denied that they constituted protected disclosures under the legislation.

Wilson’s Hospital also rejected the claim that she suffered any form of detriment after making such disclosures.

Rogers told the WRC that her role was to ensure the boarding element of the school’s operations ran efficiently and profitably.

However, she claimed she discovered various irregularities almost immediately after starting work in the school which she raised with the principal.

They included alleged irregularities with the payslips of her predecessor and fraudulent timesheets of staff.

The WRC heard that the complainant also raised concerns about potential data protection breaches, including the unauthorised removal of files.

In December 2023, Rogers said she reported her belief that a school fuel card was being used for staff members’ private vehicles.

She acknowledged that the various issues were referred by the principal to the school’s board of management with her assistance.

Rogers also recounted how she alerted the principal to how the school’s phone banking system was registered in the name of a single individual rather than Wilson’s Hospital.

She also discovered that a contractor had been overpaid, despite still seeking money for unpaid invoices for work during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Rogers claimed she had highlighted over 20 such irregularities in the course of her duties.

The WRC heard that Ms Rogers regarded the appointment of an independent third party to oversee facilities in the school in May 2024 as a demotion as she had previously reported directly to the principal.

She claimed she felt sidelined from any further investigation of the matters she had uncovered and was excluded from board meetings on such issues.

Rogers said her views were not sought by her new line manager, who instead sought assistance from the persons implicated by her disclosures.

She claimed meetings with this individual were irregular and held at unusual times.

The WRC heard that at one meeting, she was instructed to place her phone in a drawer so there could be no covert recording, while the individual also scanned the room, checking for covert listening devices.

Rogers said she disagreed with a claim made by him that much of the blame for the irregularities lay with a former colleague at the school.

She claimed that her line manager suggested that the person in question may have “groomed” her.

Rogers told the WRC that she found the context, tone and subject matter of the meeting to be “deeply uncomfortable, oppressive and profoundly unprofessional.”

In evidence, the individual denied isolating or criticising her but admitted he was concerned that their meetings might be subject to covert recording

Rogers said the school’s treatment of her left her with no option but to resign in order to preserve her well-being.

Rogers said the school had made no effort to meet her to discuss any of the issues she had raised before she left Wilson’s Hospital.

Counsel for the school, Mark Curran BL, claimed several of the alleged disclosures were never formally reported and merely constituted discussions between work colleagues of matters arising in the normal course of their duties.

Curran said the appointment of the other individual in May 2024 was to allow the principal to focus on educational matters and they replaced the principal as Ms Rogers’ line manager.

The school acknowledged she was no longer invited to board meetings but said it did not represent a diminution of her status.

It also pointed out that she had left a voicemail before leaving Wilson’s Hospital, expressing that it had been a pleasure to work with her new line manager and offering him future assistance if required.

In his ruling, WRC adjudication officer Brian Dolan said it was clear that Ms Rogers reported relevant wrongdoings within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act and they were not interpersonal grievances.

Dolan said the complainant was precisely the type of person the legislation seeks to protect from penalisation.

However, he ruled Rogers was not demoted as she had retained her title, salary and duties after the appointment of her new line manager which was to allow the school’s principal to focus on the administration of education.

The WRC official said there was a significant conflict of evidence about the professional relationship between Ms Rogers and her new line manager.

However, Dolan noted she had not raised any utilised any formal grievance procedure.

Dismissing the claim of penalisation, he ruled that Ms Rogers had not demonstrated that she had suffered any detriment.