State educational provider ordered to pay teacher who made protected disclosure €43k

When teaching in the school, Leonard Skelly spoke up about the alleged use of copyright-frauded material which was substandard and not adequately monitored to management while teaching in the school.

A State educational provider has been ordered to pay €43,425 to a teacher after it penalised him for alleging that a board-operated school had engaged in copyright infringement.

At the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Adjudicator, Davnet O’Driscoll has found that the Dublin Dun Laoghaire Education And Training Board (DDLETB) penalised Leonard Skelly for making a Protected Disclosure.

Ms O’Driscoll found that Mr Skelly was penalised in not being interviewed for a role of Business Studies teacher for the academic year 2018/2019 for which he was well qualified. Ms O’Driscoll stated that the DDLETB has not provided any explanation why Mr Skelly was not selected for interview for the post.

In ordering the DDLETB to pay the €43,425 compensation, Mr O’Driscoll said that a second fixed-term contract from the DDLETB school would have provided Mr Skelly with a contract of indefinite duration, consequent security and as a result he has suffered detriment and financial loss.

Ms O’Driscoll has also directed DDLETB to ensure that all future applications for teaching positions by Mr Skelly are given full consideration.

Protected disclosure

The WRC adjudicator found that Mr Skelly made a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 as he had a reasonable belief - even if he was wrong, but reasonably mistaken - that a criminal offence of breach of copyright has been, was being or was likely to be committed in the school.

Mr Skelly started work with the DDLETB in 2017 and remained with the DDLETB until the end of August 2018.

When teaching in the school, Mr Skelly spoke up about the alleged use of copyright-frauded material which was substandard and not adequately monitored to management while teaching in the school. He said the students were struggling at a higher level and their attainment and success was affected.

He said that the materials had been distributed to students from first to third year stamped with the Colaiste Pobail Setanta brand giving the impression that everything had been created in-house. He stated that when he reviewed the material, he saw there was lots of material which was under copyright including direct screenshots and sound files. 

Mr Skelly and other teachers were requested to upload the materials. He refused as he knew this was alleged copyright fraud, but further alleged that he was told to do so by the department head. Mr Skelly did not agree with the school policy and made this known to the vice principal in November 2017.

He alleged that he was told by other members of staff he would not have a job next year if he questioned it. Mr Skelly met the principal on November 14, 2017, and showed him the breaches of copyright on the master digital books created by staff and distributed as school e-books.

Mr Skelly informed the principal there was breach of copyright and law with a possible fine of €10,000 and three months in prison. He alleged that he was not being listened to and subsequently brought the issue to the attention of the Irish Copyright Licensing Agency and the Irish Educational Publishers Association on November 27, 2017.

He also raised the issue in the Whole School Evaluation (WSE) carried out by the Department of Education and Skills which recommended “the principal should review the schools digital strategy and put in place a robust system for review of school-created digital content..”.

The WSE also stated that “students in junior cycle do not have text books and are reliant solely on school-created digital content which varies in quantity and has not been monitored adequately by school management”.

As a result of the complaint, the school entered into an agreement with the ICLA regarding their use of content and after the end of the year agreed that the usual published e-books would be used.

Mr Skelly's allegation

Mr Skelly alleged that, as a result of his disclosure, he was accused of not doing his job and blackmailing the school. The DDLETB did not dispute that Mr Skelly made a protected disclosure, but rejected he was penalised for doing so.

The DDLETB stated that Mr Skelly’s failure to be appointed to the post of Business and Economics teacher was wholly unrelated to any protected disclosure.