I wonder how this will work out for him
Threadbanned Posters:
Hamsterchops
take everything
road_high
FixdePitchmark
gk5000
Exactly. Thats why this is all silly.
The student isnt a student in Enochs class.
Burke was coming to the courts but, 'not with clean hands' when looking for his injunction. Judge was absolutely right to take that into consideration, in not granting an injunction he would ordinarily have given.
The Principal is a member of the Board of Management.
Yes , it was a specific child.
A Child that Burke did not teach and with whom Burke would not ordinarily have had any interaction with in the normal course of a school day.
Based on some earlier reports I believe the child has since left the school , although I don't know if that was simply because they had completed their Leaving cert and moved on or if it was in any way related to Burke and his actions.
They are every bit as mad as I thought. Mad crowd!
It's not a trial or a court of law.
The Principal is de facto liaison with the board of Management.
I can't see how it would.
As it states categorically procedures can be skipped in instances of serious misconduct, also there is absolute nothing precluding the principal from meeting with the board of management, also nothing that suggests that she needs to recuse herself because of involvement.
Also AFAIK that particular principal has left for another school.
Would have been interesting if the Judge had offered the temp injection though.
The BOM are adamant they have followed the Departments guidance to the absolute letter though.
What a bunch of headcases. A family like that should not be allowed anywhere near children in a professional capacity. It would be a serious danger to them.
Imagine being Directors of a company facing a risk that would bring you onto the national news for weeks and could have a serious financial impact on the company, and NOT discussion that risk at a Board meeting?
How would all this be affecting the child at the centre of this ?
Was it a particular child ? If it was Burke is an asshole really to make a stand in this way
Agreed. My wording was poor. This is what the judge said.
The judge said he was fully satisfied that Mr Burke had established a strong case that he was likely to succeed in showing that the principal's report was discussed at the meeting to which he was not invited.
Section 4.6 of the procedures:
"If it is decided to take disciplinary action, the board of management may avail of any of the following range of sanctions:
Final written censure
deferral of an increment
withdrawal of an increment or increments
Suspension (for a limited period and/or specific purpose) with pay
Suspension (for a limited period and/or specific purpose) without pay
Dismissal.
The board of management will act reasonably in all cases when deciding on the appropriate disciplinary action. The nature of the disciplinary action should be proportionate to the nature of the issue of professional competence. Where disciplinary action short of dismissal is proposed the case will be reviewed by the board of management within a specified time period to consider whether further disciplinary action, if any, is required"
The union have already agreed to such a provision. The procedures clearly allow for a suspension without pay for a specific purpose. The specific purpose in this case would be to apologies and commit in writing to following the school procedure.
It is neat for a number of reasons. It deprives Burke of an income while avoiding the costs of an unfair dismissal case. His recourse is more limited.
The school made a serious Booboo in hiring this guy in the first instance. One would wonder what reference and Google checking they had done!
Since that initial mistake they do seem to have not taken the required steps which may come back to bite them if Burke ever cops himself on.
Imagine a judge, jury and prosecution discussing the evidence in secret and away from the defendant before the trial begins. That would clearly be unfair to the defendant. Same principle here.
Regarding all the talk about whether the school can afford legal costs, compensation etc;
My understanding is that it would be the school’s insurance that would be making all the payments.
I know for certain that this would be the case for a primary school, I presume it would be the same for a secondary school, even a private one.
I wasn't suggesting that a sanction be issued in advance of the disciplinary meeting, I was suggesting that should be the outcome of today's hearing. Apologies if that wasn't picked up from my original post.
It's inherently illegal to issue a sanction in advance of a disciplinary meeting though. That was my point. I worded my post poorly. Apologies.
You can disagree with the policy, provided you do so in a civil manner. You can't just decide arbitrarily to ignore a policy though. I can't decide to ignore my employer's corporate policies on data protection and share confidential information here, just because I feel like it.
It is a sanction available, the most serious sanction short of dismissal. It can be used in situations where it is within the power of the person suspended to correct their behaviour or commit to correct their behaviour. I can see why it might be applied in this situation.
There is nothing inherently illegal about any sanction in any situation, it all depends on the circumstances. We have an alleged situation where an employee refused a direct order from the principal and subsequently abused the principal. A commitment to follow that direct order and apologise would rectify that situation, thereby avoiding the ultimate sanction of dismissal. Suspending without pay until that commitment is received could be seen as proportionate in the circumstances.
The Board had their solicitor present at the meeting today. Of course Burke complained about that, because he claims the Department's circular about disciplinary process doesn't mention that the Board can have advisors present.
The same circular mentions that the teacher facing the process can be accompanied by up to two people, yet according to reports, Enoch brought three (his mother, sister Ammi and brother Issac). Nor does the circular say anything about shouting the meeting down being an acceptable action. As usual, they don't have any respect for the rules they claim they're holding others to.
I was talking about a different meeting months ago. The meeting that the judge is talking about in the article below.
I'm no legal expert, but I'd have thought that the Board has an absolute right to discuss ongoing issues that impact the school. In fact, the Board would be negligent if they DIDN'T discuss an issue of this significance. The question of hearing his side of the story is down to the disciplinary process. At some point in time, he would absolutely have the chance to give his side, but that time had not come when the Principal was providing an update to the Board.
I don't think that it's accurate to say " There was then a meeting held whereby, even a High Court Judge agrees, the report was discussed"
I think the Judge took the view that the allegation from Burke was sufficient to require further investigation thereby making the request for an injunction reasonable on its face , but he wasn't accepting as fact the statement from Burke.
You can't suspend someone without pay in such circumstances. Illegal.
You aren't wrong but if the disciplinary procedure is flawed, and my post that you replied to details two flaws as described by Mr Justice Conor Dignam, then the disciplinary procedure could be ruled unfair to Burke and he might get away with acting the boll1x.
Gardai called to the hotel once again after the board meeting ended a little while ago
Fundamentally this comes down to HOW Burke has chosen to complain and not WHAT he is complaining about.
He absolutely has a right to object to something and to hold to his beliefs , but he must do that within the guidelines and processes put in place by his Employers and the laws of the land.
It is his absolute refusal to do those things that has him where he finds himself , not his "beliefs".
I'm talking about a meeting that happened months ago. The school had the disciplinary report prepared by the Principal. It contained findings and conclusions drawn up by the Principal despite not having heard Burke's side of the story. There was then a meeting held whereby, even a High Court Judge agrees, the report was discussed which it shouldn't have. It's like having a secret disciplinary meeting before the disciplinary meeting if you will.
I definitely wouldn't call him a victim. Generally when there's an adult and a child scenario, the victim is the child and the adult is someone who should know better.
But I'm not sure I agree with your take that it wasn't something pushed on him. I know for example, if I were a teacher in a school where Enoch was a principle who was surrounded by like-minded people, and they created a policy that told me to ignore a student's pronoun preference, I'm trying to think about how I'd feel about it, or what I'd do about it. Wouldn't you tell Enoch that you disagree with the policy and you wouldn't be going along with it? Part of me feels like I should be able to do that without being suspended.
But maybe you're right.. Maybe I'd just agree with whatever they're asking me to do but then live life according to my own belief system. There are quite a lot of teachers out there who do that on a day to day basis. For example, I think there's a policy that says you can't hug students anymore. But I know many teachers of baby and junior infants who nod along to such requests but know rightly that if there's a 5 year old in their class who has fallen over and just needs a bit of comfort, they're going to give them a hug to help them through the moment.
The school had a Solicitor at the hearing today (which the Burkes objected to), and have had a Barrister on the case since the first injunction application, so it’s fair to assume they are getting expert legal/HR advice.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)