‘Grooming’ warning over biscuit for child in school

Editorial Department • Published 8 Oct 2010 09:00

When a primary school pupil was given a biscuit by a member of the kitchen staff, the catering supervisor was warned that she could be seen to be “grooming” the child.

She then had to attend three meetings, firstly with the acting principal then two with the school principal at St. Mary’s Primary School, Brookeborough.

One of the meetings with the principal lasted over an hour and he wanted her to attend a fourth meeting.

But by then the lady had left work because she had become upset. She felt she had been subjected to a “grilling”.

The incident has been reported to the Northern Ireland Ombudsman, who heard that during her absence, the lady’s parish priest was told by the principal that she was absent from school due to a “serious child protection issue.”

The Ombudsman, Mr. Tom Frawley says the lady should receive an apology from the Western Education and Library Board after enduring gossip and rumours over a period of two years.

She is also to receive a “consolatory payment.”

The incident happened in January 2008.

The Ombudsman’s report found that the Western Board failed to address a complaint the lady made about her treatment “promptly and appropriately”.

Mr. Frawley found there was no proper protocol in place under which Board employees can raise grievances about non-Board co-workers.

The recently published Ombudsman report concerns the Board’s handling of the supervisor’s complaint regarding comments that were made by teaching staff at St. Mary’s Primary School,

The lady gave evidence to the Ombudsman that she was working in the school kitchen when a child raised their hand and asked for a biscuit. She brought this to the attention of the catering assistant who was serving biscuits and gave permission that the child could be given one.

Her evidence states that the next day the Key Stage 1 manager, who was acting Principal, came to the kitchen and told her that under the Child Protection Act, she could be seen to be grooming a child.

The child in question is a relative of the Unit Catering Supervisor.

A meeting the following day took place with the Board-employed Area Catering Manager and the Key Stage 1 manager at which they discussed the incident and shook hands. The outcome of the meeting was that the matter was considered to be resolved.

On the principal’s return to school within days of that meeting, he held a meeting for one hour and five minutes with the Unit Catering Supervisor and the Key stage 1 manager. He referred to the potential for her actions to be seen as a child protection issue.

“I left the meeting very upset and confused. . . I felt that I had been subjected to a grilling and a ‘wrist-slapping exercise’” the Ombudsman reports of the lady’s evidence. Her evidence also notes that there was no preferential treatment given as any child approaching the hatch would have been treated the same. A further 40 minute meeting took place. The Principal sought a further meeting which did not proceed as the Supervisor had to leave work as she was upset.

Her evidence also notes she was “aggrieved” that the Principal told the parish priest she was absent from school due to a “serious child protection issue”.

A Board Welfare Officer confirmed her actions could not be perceived as child grooming, however the priest was not told there was no child protection issue after all, her evidence states.

The report notes that the Principal had “no line management responsibility” for the Unit Catering Supervisor.

There were conflicting accounts of what had taken place. The Key Stage 1 manager said that she had spoken to the Unit Catering Supervisor outlining that no child should be singled out for preferential treatment and advised how actions of favouritism could be misinterpreted. Ombudsman documents show eight months after the meetings, the Principal said he had not perceived her actions as grooming a child and that he regretted that the misinterpretation had occurred.

The supervisor was aggrieved that the Board did not take appropriate action to investigate her complaint having written on three separate occasions for the matter to be addressed.

While the Unit Catering Supervisor is employed by the Western Education and Library Board, the school staff are in the employ of the school Board of Governors and CCMS (Council for Catholic Maintained Schools).

“The fact that the Principal and Key Stage 1 manager are not Board employees did not absolve the Board of its responsibility to investigate the circumstances of the complaint as far as possible in order to determine what further actions could be taken . . .Unfortunately I have been unable to identify any evidence to suggest that the Board took any early action to investigate the circumstances that had led to the complaint in order to establish whether such intervention from the CCMS and/or the Board of Governors could have changed the dynamic of the circumstances that clearly made her feel isolated and unsupported by her employer,” Mr. Frawley notes.

The Ombudsman found that the Board did not address the matter concerning its own member of staff “appropriately”.

“It is my view that the absence of a specific procedure, under which the complaint would have been addressed in a thorough, timely and impartial manner, inevitably limited the effectiveness of the initiatives taken by the Board in terms of achieving a satisfactory resolution to what was a complex problem,” the Ombudsman stated in his findings.

He notes that the Board did take the initiative to arrange temporary postings for the Catering Supervisor in other schools during the period in which a resolution to her complaint was being sought.

However he noted his “concern” that the Catering Supervisor was informed that if she did not return to St. Mary’s by February 1 this year, her employment would be terminated.

“It is in my view that the abrupt manner in which the Board informed her of that development was highly insensitive to her position . . .it made her feel very anxious about having to return to a working environment in which there was still a lack of policy or procedure for dealing with any future grievances she may have had about her non-Board co-workers,” he notes. The threat to terminate her employment if she failed to return was “entirely inappropriate”.

The Ombudsman found that a report written by the Board showed that there was no full analysis of all available evidence.

Evidence from other witnesses was not obtained in light of the conflicting accounts about what had happened. He writes about “a lack of thoroughness” with which the complaint was addressed by the Board.

While he acknowledges the Board’s efforts in setting up a meeting and arranging a formal mediation process, he states that the failure of the Board to deal appropriately with the complaint constitutes “maladministration”.

“The breakdown in her working relationships with the school staff and her absence from her substantive post at St. Mary’s Primary School, as well as her valid concerns about perceptions, gossip and rumours circulating within her local community about her actions at the school, [were] endured over a period of two years,” he writes.

He has recommended that an apology to the Unit Catering Supervisor should be made in writing by the Chief Executive of the Board and the consolatory payment made. He is to also write to the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Education to address the lack of policy as a “matter of urgency”.

It is understood that a settlement was achieved by the Labour Relations Agency, prior to the Catering Supervisor’s return to work.

The Unit Catering Supervisor was unavailable for comment.

Tweet

This article appeared in Impartial Reporter 07 Oct 10

Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our News archives.