Ireland: Defining Workplace Bullying – Landmark Judgment Clarifies Key Principles

Last Updated: 15 April 2016
Article by Séamus Given, Louise O'Byrne and Rachel Barry
Most Read Contributor in Ireland, October 2018

A landmark court decision has provided essential practical guidance to employers seeking clarity on what constitutes bullying under Irish law. In a split decision, the Court of Appeal in Ruffley v Board of Management of St Anne's School overturned the highest ever award of damages to an employee for workplace bullying on the grounds that the defendant's actions did not constitute workplace bullying.

Workplace bullying is defined under Irish law as "repeated inappropriate behaviour... which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual's right to dignity at work." As it can be difficult to determine when this threshold has been met in practice, the Court's detailed consideration of the definition of workplace bullying is an important development for employers. The conclusions of the Court and the key lessons for employers following the decision are outlined below.


The High Court had awarded the plaintiff €255,276 for personal injuries caused by alleged bullying in the course of her employment as a special needs assistant (SNA) in the defendant's school. The allegations of bullying arose from the implementation of a flawed disciplinary process by her employer over the course of a year.

In 2009, the plaintiff became concerned and sought help when a child she was working with fell asleep in a room used for individual therapy (the Sensory Room). During this incident, the Principal discovered that the plaintiff had locked the Sensory Room door from the inside. Despite the plaintiff's claims that other SNAs had locked the Sensory Room door, a four week monitoring process was put in place to review the pupil's progress under the plaintiff's guidance.

Towards the end of the monitoring period, the class teacher noted that the plaintiff had ticked a box on the monitoring form which indicated that the pupil had completed a goal when in fact he had not done so. The plaintiff was not allowed to correct this entry, and the disciplinary process was reactivated. The board decided that the plaintiff should be given a final written warning, a sanction just below dismissal. After a short delay, the plaintiff was informed of the sanction and sought to appeal the result, but was ultimately unsuccessful. The plaintiff continued working until September 2010, when, after an exchange over alleged lateness for work, she went on sick leave due to work related stress. She subsequently sued her employer, claiming that its actions over the course of the disciplinary process had caused her psychiatric injuries, and her personal injury claim was successful before the High Court.

The school appealed the award on a number of grounds, including that it did not cause the mental health injuries suffered by the plaintiff and that its conduct did not constitute 'bullying'. The Court found that the trial judge was entitled to accept medical evidence that the mental health injuries of the plaintiff were caused by the actions of the school. The key question was, therefore, whether the school's conduct amounted to bullying.


The Court confirmed the statutory definition of workplace bullying is "repeated inappropriate behaviour...which could reasonably be regarded as undermining the individual's right to dignity at work." Each judge then examined the key elements of this definition: the meanings of 'repeated' and 'inappropriate' behaviour and the concept of 'undermining the individual's right to dignity at work'.

"Repeated" behaviour

A 'once-off' incident cannot amount to bullying – conduct must be 'repeated'. The Court in Ruffley was satisfied the conduct of the school did not amount to a once-off incident, and made the following key observations in coming to this conclusion:

i. Courts will take a holistic view of a complaint:

The school argued that the disciplinary process could not be considered 'repeated' behaviour because it was one continuous process. However, the Court focused on substance over semantics in rejecting the school's assertion, noting that there were several meetings and events over a year long period.

ii. Repetitive conduct should be proximate in time:

A split arose on the issue of the timing of incidents of alleged bullying, with Finlay Geoghegan J stating that the requirement for conduct to be 'repetitive' simply meant that a 'once off' incident could not amount to bullying. Irvine J went further, suggesting that a gap of several years between incidents might not amount to 'repetitive behaviour' in some circumstances. The timing of any alleged incidents of bullying will therefore be relevant in determining whether bullying has taken place.

iii. Repetitive conduct may not necessarily be equivalent in character:

Bullying can take many forms, from abusive emails to allegations of 'freezing out'. In practice, allegations of bullying are likely to consist of a number of incidents that might be quite different in character, making it difficult to determine whether an incident has been 'repeated'.

The Court was split on this point. Irvine J noted that 'different types of behaviour when directed at one person may constitute bullying', whilst Ryan P understood 'repeated' to mean that it is 'the same behaviour or class of behaviour that is offensive and amounts to bullying'.

Employers should therefore be aware that where an employee complains of different types of incidents, the fact that the incidents are of a different character may not prevent the conduct from being repetitive.

"Inappropriate" behaviour

If the behaviour is not inappropriate, it cannot be considered bullying. A key argument of the school in this case was that the implementation of a disciplinary process could not be described as inappropriate. However, the Court did not accept this argument. The following remarks of the Court are important indicators of when behaviour may be defined as inappropriate:

i. A disciplinary process may be 'inappropriate' in certain circumstances:

Employers should be aware that "behaviour that can objectively be viewed as bullying enjoys no safe haven merely by reason of the fact that it may have taken place in the context of a disciplinary process." (Irvine J)

ii. The test is objective; motivation is irrelevant:

A majority of the Court agreed that determining whether behaviour is inappropriate cannot depend on the subjective perceptions of either the victim or the perpetrator.

Ryan P's suggestion that the motive of the school (protection of children with special needs) was relevant in determining whether bullying had occurred blurs this principle. However, in light of other recent cases, employers should proceed on the basis that even good intentions will not prevent a Court from objectively determining that bullying has occurred.

"Undermining the individual's right to dignity at work"

A key factor in the decision to overturn the award of the High Court was the Court's conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that the behaviour of the school undermined her right to dignity at work. The following observations of the Court to this provide guidance in interpreting this element of the definition of bullying.

i. Employees must demonstrate that their dignity has been undermined:

Ryan P noted that, whilst the conduct of the school may have undermined the plaintiff's work, or even her right to work, it could not properly be regarded as undermining her dignity. The proper test for workplace bullying therefore centres on the dignity of the employee, rather than the performance of an employee's duties.

ii. Disciplining for conduct which is 'common practice' does not necessarily undermine an employee's dignity :

The plaintiff argued that disciplining her alone for locking the door of a room amounted to bullying, as this was in fact common practice among special needs assistants at the school. The majority of the Court disagreed with this argument, noting that the fact that others engaged in the same

practice and had not been caught did not mean that the investigation of the school into a single incident where the plaintiff had been discovered was inappropriate or vindictive, especially in the context of child protection concerns.

Finlay Geoghegan J, in her dissenting judgment, found that the right to 'dignity at work' included the right not to be singled out for disciplinary treatment in relation to a practice.

Ultimately, the comments of the Court suggest that a prudent employer, when it becomes aware of a common practice, should be slow to initiate a disciplinary process against only one individual before conducting a wider investigation. In the face of competing duties (in this case, to vulnerable children) this is not always possible. However, an employer should be cognisant of the requirement to ultimately justify its actions.


  • The Courts will engage in a detailed examination of the factual background of any bullying complaints, regardless of the context in which the complaints occur – it is possible for behaviours occurring in the context of a disciplinary process to amount to bullying.
  • Finlay Geoghegan J noted that the plaintiff's claim was based on an allegation of 'corporate bullying', defined as allegation "that the management of the enterprise is implicated in the bullying activity." The Ruffley judgement is the first instance in which the Court of Appeal has considered this type of claim, and in this regard the suggestion from Finlay Geoghegan J that corporate bullying and other cases of bullying activity may be treated differently by the courts in terms of the cause of action and necessary proofs on the part of a plaintiff is instructive for employers dealing with these types of cases.
  • Whilst the Ruffley decision may discourage employees from pursuing personal injuries actions, employers still need to take the time to ensure that their procedures are robust and fair to avoid exposing themselves to large monetary awards.
  • The Court was divided in determining whether the conduct of the school was 'inappropriate' and on the question of what 'could reasonably be regarded as undermining the plaintiff's right to dignity at work'. It is therefore important that employers understand the meaning of these elements of the definition of workplace bullying.
  • Employers should, when making disciplinary decisions, ensure they are in a position to justify their actions based on objective criteria. An example of a relevant consideration in this case was the competing obligations faced by the school to employees and vulnerable service users.

A complete review of this case can be found in the Arthur Cox Employment Law Yearbook 2015 (Chapter 6), with further commentary on the original High Court decision available in the Arthur Cox Employment Law Yearbook 2014.

This article contains a general summary of developments and is not a complete or definitive statement of the law. Specific legal advice should be obtained where appropriate.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions