Special Needs Assistant's dismissal over cocaine allegation deemed unfair due to 'alarming deficiencies in the decision to dismiss'

A secondary school Special Needs Assistant (SNA) has been unfairly dismissed concerning an allegation that he used cocaine on school grounds.

Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Adjudication Officer, Kevin Baneham, has ordered the school to pay the former SNA €1,000 for the unfair dismissal.

Mr Baneham said that there were “alarming deficiencies in the decision to dismiss” the SNA who denied all drug related allegations and Mr Baneham made the €1,000 award in light of the contribution made by the complainant.

Mr Baneham stated that one of the findings of the dismissal letter to the SNA was that drugs were on the school campus in December 2017 and Mr Baneham says that no such allegation was ever made.

The investigation into the SNA was sparked by an incident which occurred on the last day of the school term in June 2018.

On the day, the school organised a break-up party, with a staff sports day and some lunch. This finished at 5pm and some staff went out later to a local pub.

However, while there, an Assistant Principal (AP) said that he had walked into a bathroom on two SNAs who he saw standing with their back to the door and he felt that something was wrong.

The complainant, who was subsequently dismissed on the grounds of serious misconduct, had something in his hand.

According to the AP’s statement, the other SNA had his hand up to his face and the two scurried into cubicles.

The AP said that he believed that this was drugs. The AP has previously told the principal that he had been offered cocaine at a Christmas event in December 2017.

The SNA who was dismissed denied all allegations of drug use. The second SNA made a statement that he was shown cocaine at the June incident but did not want to partake.

However, Mr Baneham stated that the second SNA’s statement “was self-serving and unreliable”.

Mr Baneham said:

In a re-enactment of the classic Prisoner’s Dilemma, he laid blame on his co-accused. This is ‘Operation Save-My-Job’.

Mr Baneham stated that the allegation was that the two SNAs were both engaged in suspicious behaviour in the toilet, but the SNA who provided the statement framed his statement to assign blame squarely on someone else.

Mr Baneham said that he believes everything the Assistant Principal said at the hearing and gave a cogent and clear account. He said that the AP had no axe to grind.

He stated that the finding that the AP is telling the truth is, in reality, fatal to the school’s case.

Mr Baneham said: “This is because it relied on the statement made by the other SNA on the September 11th 2018. This statement conveys that the staff member was shown cocaine but said that he did not want to partake.

“This is not what the Assistant Principal reported. He saw the other SNA with 'his hand to his face'. The Assistant Principal presumes that drugs are taken. The other SNA does not account for this evidence.”

The sacked SNA stated that the conclusion regarding the June incident was based on the other SNA’s statement and this was one person’s word against the other.

Since the dismissal, the complainant recently started working in a part-time role in a franchise.

He is looking to retrain in IT. He has looked for other SNA roles but did not have reference to obtain such a role.