Wilson's Hospital manager claims she was penalised for reporting alleged financial irregularities

Among the complaints made by the former head of facilities were alleged irregularities with payslips and fraudulent timesheets of staff. Picture: Leon Farrell/ RollingNews.ie

An employment tribunal has ruled 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, and subjected to ongoing inappropriate behaviour, as well as having many of her duties removed in breach of the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

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

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

Ms Rogers told the WRC 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 the complainant also raised concerns about potential data protection breaches, including the unauthorised removal of files.

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

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

Ms 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 a contractor had been overpaid, despite still seeking money for unpaid invoices for work during the covid-19 pandemic.

Ms Rogers claimed she had highlighted more than 20 such irregularities in the course of her duties.

The WRC heard 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.

Ms 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 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.

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

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

Ms Rogers told the WRC 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 their meetings might be subject to covert recording. 

Ms Rogers said the school’s treatment of her left her with no option but to resign to preserve her wellbeing.

Ms 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.

Mr Curran said several related to interpersonal grievances exclusively affecting Ms Rogers.

He also argued the allegations regarding financial management and data protection were not capable of being constituted as wrongdoings under the relevant legislation.

Mr 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.

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

However, he ruled Ms 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.

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