Implications of the Louise O'Keefe ruling

Glenbhoy

To my mind (as a non-teacher), the structure whereby the state seeks to shift it's responsibilities as an employer to a voluntary board of lay people is absolutely disgraceful, albeit typical of this state's behaviour over the years.

I've never understood why unions allow it to continue to exist, I presume they've been told that salaries will only be maintained if the status quo is retained?

Aside from the implications for child safety, will this O'Keefe ruling finally put to bed the fallacy that the 'board of management' is the teacher's employer? No doubt, the state will try and ringfence the effects of this ruling, but surely it's only a matter of time before this is challenged?

seavill

Have you a link to this ruling or a story on it

Gertrude2

Given the absolute control of the Catholic Church over those national schools, why isn't the church paying the damages?

donegal11

Gertrude2 wrote: »

Given the absolute control of the Catholic Church over those national schools, why isn't the church paying the damages?

She pursued the state because they have deeper pockets. The state actually complained that she didn't sue the bishop and I think the board for damages before she challenged the department of education.

There is already garda vetting and I can't see any changes in how schools are run. To put things in perspective has there been any cases of child abuse occurring in schools over the past 20 years?

Peter Flynt

The state wants to be employer when it suits it. . . .

They'd have no problem denying someone a CID (even though it may be sanctioned by a Board of Management) . . . yet they denied all responsibility in this case.