Penalty reduced for school whistleblower

A staff member at a State school who had been found guilty of arrogant and abusive behaviour towards her head of school had her one-day suspension without pay lifted by the Public Service Commission (PSC) after it emerged that she was a whistleblower.

This was revealed in the PSC's annual report, which documents the main cases it heard in 2013.

During an appeal hearing held by the PSC, the lawyer representing the staff member claimed that the she had been victimised by her head of school for reporting irregular practices in the school's tuck shop.

The lawyer contended that instead of taking action to address these irregularities, which amounted to a breach of the Food Safety Act, the head of school had victimised the defendant.

In fact, an investigation into the alleged irregularities had resulted in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the head of school.

The PSC acknowledged that witnesses had confirmed the allegation of insubordinate behaviour which the head of school had made in relation to the defendant.

Moreover, the PSC observed that while the defendant had a right to question a superior officer, this should never be made in an arrogant or aggressive manner or by using offensive language.

It said that the defendant had not followed the proper channels of representation when she had reported food safety irregularities in the tuck shop.

But the PSC also noted that the reporting of irregularities by the defendant represented an act of whistleblowing, which appeared to be justified by the fact that disciplinary action had been initiated against the head of school. This was a mitigating factor in the defendant's favour, which merited being taken into account, although it did not excuse her behaviour.

With these considerations in mind, the PSC decided that the penalty imposed on the defendant was to be reduced to the minimum possible.

Using its discretion under Regulation 3(2) of the Disciplinary Regulations, the PSC recommended the imposition of a written warning instead of the one-day suspension originally imposed on the defendant.