THE
KILLEAN
DISMISSAL
.. A HARSH. UNWARRANTED
AND
ARBITRARY
EXERCISE
OF MANAGERIAL AUTHORITY"
•
THE IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' ORGANISATION
DUBLIN
FOREWORD
"
The dismissal of Mrs. Eleanor C. Keenan from her position
as teacher in Killean School, Newry, by her Manager, Very
Rev. Canon IVlcNally, P.P., Upper Killeavey, Co. Armagh,
attracted considerable attention during the spring and
summer of 1939. The broad facts of the case were first made
known to the public through the medium of the Press reports
of a discussion which took place at the Annual Congress of
the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, held in Belfast during Easter Week, 1939. The dismissal notice had expired some
weeks previously, Le., on March 28th, and Mrs. Keenan was
then unemployed. Some two months later a statement from
the Manager appeared in the public Press, and this was followed by a lengthy correspondence between Rev. John
Donnelly (Secretary to His Eminence Cardinal MacRory), on
the one hand, and the President and Secretary of the I.N.T.O.
and Mrs. Keenan herself, on the other.
Following the announcement made at the Belfast Congress,
rnmours of the most fantastic and extraordinary character
began to be circulated as to what were supposed to be " the
real reasons " for the dismissal of Mrs. Keenan. Members of
the Organisation, even before they left Belfast, were asked
whether it was true that Mrs. Keenan "had written a book
against the Church ", whether she was" separated from her
husband ", whether the latter was a "non-Catholic and a
Communist "; etc.
Like all such rumours, their source of
origin was, and must evel' remain, a mystery; but it is not
difficult to realise that they were born and continued to have
their being in the popular and, indeed, understandable belief
that a teacher would not be thus deprived of her livelihood
and cast on the roadside after long and faithful service unless
there were some much more substantial reasons than any which
had up to then been disclosed. These rumours persisted
despite the fact that it was made clear by the I.N.T.O. Executive
that they had been most solemnly assured that there were" no
charges of any kind" &gainst her, and that they themselves
hpd made the most minute and searching inquiries in order to
satisfy themselves that there was nothing in her conduct either
as a teacher, a citizen, or a memher of the Catholic community
that could be alleged to her discredit. These inquiries went
to show that she, with ·her husband and children, were 'a model
Catholic family. who were held in high esteem by the people
/imong whom they lived and worked. These rumours and
4
insinuations were given a new lease of life as a result of the
letters published SO'Ille months later in the daily Press over the
name of the Rev. J. Donnelly, Secretary to His Eminence the
Cardinal. The El<ecutive of the I.N.T.O. are regretfully compelled to put on record their belief, based on the most reliable
information, that these unfounded rumours still persist in some
quarters, where it is held and asserted that " there is much
more behind the Keenan case than has appeared on the
surface". Father Donnelly's disclaimer in his letter of
October 6th, 1939, of any intention either on the part of the
Manager or himself to suggest that there were any charges
against Mrs. Keenan's moral character " in the cc:>mmonly
accepted sense of these words" was somewhat discounted by
his insistence that there was, in fact, " a very serious charge"
against her in her professional. capacity as a teacher, and more
especially by the IManager's final letter of December 30th,
1939, wherein he showed his anxiety lest any such disclaimer
could be read into Father Donnelly's letters. It was thus left
to the public to infer that, despite all that had been said and
written, there still existed some lmdisclosed charges which
would not be promulgated or published, since, if that were
done, it would " endanger or destroy Mrs. Keenan ~s prospects
of further employment ". It will be seen at once that nothing could be more calculated to injure the character and prospects of a teacher than these veiled hints and suggestions of
unnamed charges or irregularities, having regard especially to
the quarters from which they emanated, and it is little wonder
that, in view of the drastic treatment which was meted out to
this teacher, the belief should still persist in certain quarters
that Mrs. Keenan was guilty of conduct which rendered her
un worthy to occupy the position of teacher in a primary school.
The part played by the Teacbers' Organisation in its efforts
to protect the interests of one of its members has been assailed
and condemned; its interference has been resented, and its
Executive and Officials have been charged with responsibility
for what has been described as " a notorious and deplorable
case ".
All efforts' on the part of the Organisation to bring about an
amicable settlement of this matter having failed, it becomes
necessary, in the interests of truth, justice, and fair play, that
all the facts and circumstances surrounding the dismissal of
this teacher should be placed fully before the public. It is due
to the Organisation itself that this should be done, but much
more is it due to Mrs. Keenan and to her young family that
nothing should be left undone to have her character-personal
or professional-cleal;ed of all the aspersions, veiled or otherwise, which have been cast upon it. That is the compelling
motive which has induced the Organisation to collect and issue
•
5
in this compact form all the statements which have been made
by both sides to the controversy, and to show at the same time
how little substance there is in the arguments on which those
responsible for Mrs. Keenan's dismissal have based their case.
Knowing both sides, the public will be in a position to ~orm its
own judgment on the merits of the case. The Teachers'
Organisation have no doubt as to its verdict.
-Ma1"Ch, 1942 .
•
•
,. ""
.. ..
'
,~
..
~,~, '~,"
,- ., ..•... ,."
'"".,.'.,., .','.'.:," "
..
.:.>
TENURE OF CATHOLIC PRIMARY TEACHERS-THE
"MAYNOOTH RESOLUTION"
Before dealing with the circumstances connected with Mrs.
Keenan's dismissal, it may be well to set out hriefly the general
conditions governing the tenure of teaehers employed in
National, or (as they are termed in Northern Ireland) Public
Elementary Schools. With the exception of those schools in
Northern Ireland whieh ihave been transferred under the 1923
Act to the local authorities, and a small number of model
schools, the government o'f every National and Public Elementary School in Ireland is entrusted to a local Manager who in
the ease of schools' attended solely or mainly by Catholi<JS is
almost invariably the local Parish Priest-in a few cases the
Managership may be held by a Curate appointed to that office
by the Bishop.
Subject to eertain conditions as to qualifications which are
laid down by the Ministry of Education, the appointment of
the teachers rests with the lI'lanager. He is obliged by the
official regulations to execute a formal legal agreement between
himseIf and each individual teacher appointed by him which
provides imter oJ,ia, that the teacher's employment may be terminated by ,a three months' notice in writing on either side.
The legal ,position, therefore, is that a l\Ilanager may at any
time dispense with the serviees of a teacher' by giving him three
months' notice in writing, or by paying him three months'
salary, and he is under no legal obligation to assign a reaSOn
for the removal of the teacher concerned. Obviously the dismissal ofa teacher without good and sufficient reason could
not be regarded otherwise than as a harsh and arbitrary
exercise of a legal rigiht. Towards the close of the last century,
some such dismissals did take place, and as a result of protests
and agitation by the Teachers' Organisation at the time, the
Bishops at their meeting in Maynooth in June, 1898, passed a
Resolution to the effect that no Catholic teacher could in future
be dismissed by a Catholic Clerical Manager without the prior
eonsent of the Bishop of the Diocese.
This decision of the
~..shops familiarly known and referred to as " The Maynooth
Resolution" 'was revised in June, 1916, at the request of the
Teachers' Organisation when the following text was adopted :-
" Resolved--That in order to secure uniformity ()f procedure under the Maynooth Resolution of June, 1898, the
Bishops will interpret the said resolution in the sense
suggested by the teachers, namely-That the teach\l.r shall
~
, '","
,
.
"",
:".:?l
7
'be afi'orded an opportunity of being heard in his own
defence before he is either summarily dismissed, or served
with notice of dismissal."
Since its promulgation the" Maynooth Resolution " has been
accepted and regarded by Catholic teachers as th.e~r " Magna
Charta H.
Wherever and whenever its prOVISIOns have
operated it has almost without exception prevented the dismissal of a teacher except on good and sufficient grounds. It
thus guarantees virtual security of tenure to all Catholic
teachers during good conduct and efficiency. It is but natural,
therefore, that the teachers should jealously guard this
precious privilege which now through the Decrees of the
Maynooth Synod has been transformed into a right. Through
their Organisation they have ever been watchful to prevent
any invasion or evasion of that right. They are satisfied that
if the terms of the Maynooth Resolution are fnlly observed,
and that a teaeher is given the opportunity of answering'
before his Bishop any charges that may be alleged against
him, before a dismissal notice is served on him, no teacher
will be dismissed without just cause. The Executive of the
Teachers' Organisation maintain that if the terms of the
Maynooth Resolution had been fully observed in the manner,
and especially in the spirit in which it was intended to operate,
in the case of Mrs. Keenan, and in which it has been operated
over a period of roughly 50 years, the "Killean Dismissal
Case" would never have arisen, and the uneasiness which it
has caused to thousands of Catholic teachers, and to many
others outside the teaching profession, would have been
avoided.
THE KII.I.EAN DISMISSAL CASE
The General Secretary's Statement to Congress
•
•
The facts and circumstances surrounding' the dismissal of
Mrs. Eleanor Keenan from Killean Public Elementary School
by the Very Rev. F. Canon McNally, P.P., the Manager of the
School, were first made public in a statement made to the delegates present at the Annual Congress of the Irish National
Teachers' Organisation held in Belfast during Easter Week,
1939. m1;.e text of this statement, taken from the Official
Report of the Congress proceedings, is as follows:Permission having been obtained from the Standing Orders
Committee to move an emergency resolution regarding the dismissal of a member of the N emy Branch, the General
Secretary, in submitting this resolution to Congress, spoke ,as
follows:-
8
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have been deputed by the Eltecutive to put before you
to~ay certain facts and circumstances surrounding the
removal of one of our members from her position as a teacher,
and to ask you to express your opinion on these facts and
circumstances as they appear to you when you have heard and
considered them.
I should say at the outset that nothing is more repugnant
to the Exeeutive, or to myself, personally, than that we should
be forced into the position of bringing before you to-day the
incidents' I am now about to relate. I can truthfully and
honestly say, both on their behalf and my own, that every
step it was humanly possible for us to take was taken before
that course was decided on.
But' we owe a duty to the
Organisation that has placed us in a position of trust and
responsibility, and to every individual member who, by right,
looks to the Organisation and to the Executive for prptection
and succour in his hour of need. That duty will not be shirked,
no matter from what quarter danger threatens. The weaker
and more helpless the victim, the greater and more determined
must be the measure of our assistance.
I shall endeavour to state the case as fairly, fully and impartially as I can, and if I encroach unduly on your time in doing
so, I crave your indulgence. I know you will recognise, as we
on the platform recognise, that it is one of the most important
issues which Congress has for many years been called on to
discuss, and for that reason you will bear with me while I put
the facts fully before you. The main facts, briefly and bluntly,
are as follows:In 1926, Mrs. Eleanor Keenan, was appointed as assistant
teacher in Killean Girls' School, Newry. ,seven years ]aterin 1933-she was appointed as principal in the same school.
She fllled both positions to the entire satisfaction of the
educational authorities and, apparently, of the Manager also,.
for no complaint was made against her on the score of efficiency
or conduct.
On December 28th, 1938, the same Manager who had
appointed her some thirteen years previously, Rev. Ganon
MacNally, P.P., of Killeavey, Newry, served her with a three
months' notice, dismissing her from her position as teacher in
Killean Girls' School-a position which, first as an assistant,
and later as principal, she had filled for a period of thirteen
years. Since March 28th last, Mrs. Keenan is numbered among
the ranks 'of the unemployed.
You will, naturally, ask what crime has this woman been
guilty of, what great wrong has she done, wherein has she
failed in her duty, that she should thus be deprived of her
livelihood. I can only reply that she has committed no crime,
, ','
..~
,".
_i:i
~
.-•
9
she has done no wrong, nor has she been guilty of any dereliction of duty. No charge of any kind, either as regards conduct or efficiency, has been formulated against her. Her
character is irreproachable. She is rated as au efficient teacher
-in fact, her official rcports are bordering on highly efficient.
Yet, this teacher, having given good and faithful service in
that school for a period of thirteen years, is now treated as if
she had been guilty of some gl'ave moral lapse, or had become
grossly and cUlpably inefficient, for she has been visited with
the greatest penalty which it is in the power of a manager
to inflict on a teaeher.
I have no doubt that you who are listening to me have but
• "ne thougbt in your minds at tbis moment. You are, 'each of
you, saying to yourseh'cs: " If this teacher was giving satisfactory service, and if no cbarge of any kind as regards conauct or chm'acter has been formulated against her, why should
her Manager have dismissed her?" And that is, undoubtedly,
an obvions and natural question to ask-all the more so hccause, as far back as the memory of anyone here g'oes, nothing
like this has ever occurred before, and becausc from one end
of Ireland to the other the belief had grown up, and had come
to be firmly held, that nothing like it would ever occur again.
My friends, you have read your history in vain-more
especially tbe history of recent events, if you have not realised
that the exercise of arbitrary power is never wanting for an
alleged reason to justify or excuse its operation. When Canon
MacNalJy made up his mind to deprive Mrs. Keenan of her
position, he weut back five years to find a reason to justify his
action. Please note, bowever, that when I say this I must also
say that this is a matter of slll"mise. So far as tbe teacher, or
her Org-anisation, is aware, (;'anon IVlacNally has never com-
•
•
mitted to writing bis reason, even his alleged reason, for dismissing her. In so far as she or they have any knowledge of
what operated to bring about her dismissal, that knowledge
was obtained indirectly from those whose duty and privilege
it was to hold the balance evenly, fairly, impartially and justly,
as between the teaehel: and the iVIanag-cr, and to say whether
or not tbese alleg-ed reasons We1"e sufficiently g-rave and impelling- to justify her removal from her position.
I shall tell you tbe facts, as we know tbem:
In August, 1933, the principalship of KiJlean Girls'
School ·became vacant, owing to the death of the former
principal. In view of tbe average attendance (it was, I believe, under fifty), the Ministry r,aised the question of the
amalgamation of the school witb the nei.gbbouring boys'
school. Tbe Manager, it would appear, objected to this, and,
it is assumed, put forward some reasons wby tbe amalgamation
shouJ.d not then be carried out. While these discussions and
10
•
negotiations were .going on, the lady who had acted' as substitute for the principal, prior to the death of the latter, was
allowed to earry on as loculn tenens for three months. By that
time, apparently, the Manager had succeeded in inducing the
Ministry to drop, or at least shelve, the question·of amalgamation, and on December 1st, 1933, the principalship of the Girls' .
School was offered to the assistant, Mrs. Keenan, and was
formally accepted by her. Let me say here that she positively
asserts, and there is no reason to doubt 'her word, that the
offer and its ·acceptance were absolutely free from any conditions as between the Manager and herself. When the appoint-.
ment was notified to the Ministry, however, she was informed
that she was sanctioned subject to this proviso, namely, that
pending the consideration of the question of amalgamationand I want you to keep that phrase in mind-that pending the
consideration of the question of amalgamation, her appointment would be regarded as temporary or provisional, and that,
while pending such consideration, she would be paid full
salary, including capitation, she would have no right in case of
amalgamativn to be regarded as a privileged assistant iI) the
amalgamated schooL * Now, that is .a kind of condition or
proviso which is not unfamiliar to teachers on both sides of the
Border. The education authorities are ever ready to seize on
any chance to make even small economies, and they take precautions to avoid unnecessary commitments. In this case their
attitude vis-a-vis the :iVIanager was this: "You are free to fill
this vacancy, and to appoint a principal, but if and when
amalgamation takes place, the principal so appointed will IlDt
be entitled to be recognised as privileged assistant in the
amalgamated schooL" Y6u willno.te that it was the Ministry,
and not the Manager, that made this condition. The letter containing the pro viS(), and setting forth the condition on which
she was recognised, was sent by the 'Ministry direct to the
teacher, ,and no doubt a copy of it, or a letter in similar terms,
was sent to the Manager at the same time.
Long after the date of the Ministry's letter, and when he
must have been fully aware of its contents, .the Manager
entered into the usual three months' agreement with Mrs.
Keenan. The agreement shows. that he appointed her as
"Principal Teacher" of Killean Girls' SchooL t
From the
day on which that agreement was signed until October of last
year-practically five years-the questi{lll of her position, or
her permanency, was never raised by either Manager or
Ministry. Yvu will remember that she was fully recognised
" pending the consideration of the question of amalgamation "
-these are the Ministry'S own words-and during those five
* See Appendix VI, page 26.
t See Appendix I. page 23.
11
~:
•
•
years the question of amalgamation was never brought up, and
never considered, and for all praetical purposes Mrs. Keenan
regarded herself, and had every reason to regard herself, as
securely fixed in her position as any teacher in this room.
There is not the slig'htest doubt but that the Ministry, who
made the proviso originally, was satisfied to continue her in
the principalship, without any suggestion of change in status
or emoluments. I should say here that it is the practice of the
Northern Ministry to regard the temporary or provisional
nature of an appointment as having lapsed after the position
has been occupied for five years.
Early last October, however, the Manager visited the schools,
and called the teachers together. He told them that he proposed to make changes-that the lady assistant in the boys'
school would become principal of the girls' school-that Mrs.
Keenan would have the choice of one or other of the assistantships. If she chose to stay in the girls' school, then the
assistant in the girls' school would be appointed to the boys'
school.
Now, I understand that it is alleged that when Mrs. Keenan
was faced with this proposal she assented, and agreed to take
the position of assistant in the boys' school. Varying statements as to this have been made, and there is some conflict of
evidence on the point. But, so far as we here are concerned,
that is entirely beside the point.
It is really immaterial
whether she did 01' did not agree at this stage, and for the sake
of argument, if the point is pressed, it will not be disputed,
because we know only too well that there are very many
teachers, and perhaps I should say women teachers, especially,
who are not fully aware of their rights-and still less are they
aware of the rights and powers which a Manager may exercise.
At this stage she turned to her Organisation for advice, and
was promptly told that before she could be removed from her
position the Manag'er should give her a formal three months'
notice in writing, and that before he could do so he must get
the permission of the Bishop of the diocese, who would hear
her in her own defence prior to g'iving such permission. The
school is in the Archdiocese of Arma,gh-the Bishop is His
Eminence Cardinal MacRory. When the subject was broached
again, therefore, she raised the question of notice, and of the
Maynooth Resolution.' The i\'Ianag'er's answer, and attitude,
are specially significant, and have a most important bearing on
the subsequent issue.
He told her that the Cardinal was
already aware of the proposed changes, that His Eminence
agreed with them, and had sanctioned them; that if she wished
she could go to the Cardinal, but if she did, then he, the
:';[anager, ,,"ould dismiss her from the school altogether, and
Rhe \Y0111c1 t herPflftrr have no position in Killean School. I la~
12
special emphasis on this, because' it shows the spirit in which
this dismissal was carried out, and because it shows clearly and
forcibly that there is no substance or merit in the reason
alleged for getting rid of this teacher.
It appears to ,be the Manager's case that Mrs. Keenan was
not permanently appointed as principal, and that, therefore,
he was free at any time to remove her from that temporary
post. Assuming that his contention is correct-that she was
only occupying that position temporarily-the very most he
would be entitled to do would be to remove her from the tem·
porary position she had thus ,occupied, and to put her back in
the position from which, according to his own version, he had
temporarily promoted her.
What justification, even on his
own showing, has he had for removing her from Killean
School 1 If she had agreed to go quietly, to make no fuss' or
bother, she would be given the assjstantship; but if she insisted
on her rights-rights to which she was clearly entitled under
the law of the land and the law of the Church of which she is
a member-then there would be no position .for ·her in Killean
School.
Now I come to another, and much more serious aspect of the
case, for it concerns not Mrs. Keenan ahme, but every Catholic
teacher in Ireland. You all know that there is a cert!lin pro·
. vision commonly known as the " Maynooth Resolution". It
came int{l being almost half a century ago in the form of a
resolution adopted by the Catholic Hierarchy at their annual
meeting in Maynooth-hence the name. It is now embodied
in the Maynooth Statutes, and is, consequently, part and parcel
of Catholic Church law in this country. It provides that a
Catholic Clerical Manager may not dismiss a teacher, or serve
him with n{ltice of dismissal, until he has first obtained the
consent (If the Bishop of the diocese, after the teacher has been
heard in his own defence by the Bishop. That is the Catholic
teacher's Magna, Charlllr-that is his court of appeal--that is
his protection ag'ainst arbitrary dismissal, and for close on fifty
years the teachers have accepted this as a satisfactory assur·
ance of their security during good conduct.and efficiency. Let
us examine how that safeguard operated in this case. I have
already told you that early in October last the l\IIanager had
first broached to the teacher the subject of these proposed
changes in the staffing of the school. "It was not, however,
until December 16th that he definitel) .ssued the verbal order
that Mrs. Keenan was to take up duty as assistant in her own
school after the Christmas vacation-an order equivalent to
summary dismissal from her position as principal of the sch{lol.
Despite the very definite terms of the l\IIaynooth Statute, she
was thus being dismissed, without being given the opportunity
of appearing before her Bishop in her own defence,
.
•
13
OnoI' about December 19th, the Executive addressed a letter
to the Manager,· pointing out that the provisions of the
Maynooth Resolution had not been complied with, and, that
being so, it would be the duty of the Organisation to advise
Mrs. Keenan to reg·ard any order to vacate her position as
being null and void.
The Manager's reply to that is significant. It was as
follows:I' Mountain Lodge.
Newry,
22nd December,' 1938.
KILLEAl'\ GIRLS' P.E.S., CO. ARMAGH.
HI' )11"5. K€'('nan, ~ Temporar,Y J Principal Teacher
in uhon'-mentioncd School.
Uf'ar Sir,
t aIll iil rt'('eipt of ,your ll'tter J and thank ~'OlI for it, though I had,
already, ('oll1plied ,dtll my obligations in virtue of the l\faynooth Synod,
to 'which ;rOl! are good ellough to J'efer me; and had already told Mrs.
Kesnan that tllP \\"a~' was open to her to put her case before my
Bishop-Hi!; EminellC'{' Cardinal 3Iac-Rol',y-if she so desired.
.
Finding that ::\lnL Keentln btU:; lIot appeared to make her defen~e
hefore His Eminul(,(,. 1 havE:' to-day notified her by letter that HIS
Ell1illenr(' \i'ill reeein~ hel'l and hear her defence at Ara Coeli, 'Armagh,
un Tuesda\' next the 27th instant, at two o'clock, p.m.
If she f~ils to' keep this appointment, or, keeping it, fails to make
good 11('1" defencE', 1 shall forthwith send her a three calendar months'
notice to dl,tE'l"mine her employment, on the expiration of which her
emp10nnent will '~ease. und she will l,e without any position or employment ilt this sehoo1. 'fhe ease is an unusual one, and, notwithstanding
your wide experience I 1 douht if 'yOU have ever had a similar -case to
treat.
I am, dear Sir.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) F. MACNALLY, P.P.
T . •T. O'Cullnell. Esq"
(;(>110I"a1 Secrt'tary,
Irish Xntionnl
o Gardiner
•
•
Tl'aeh~rs'
Organisation,
Place, Dublin."
:\ote that in Ihi, letter the Manager states that he had already
complied with the conditions of the i\Iaynooth Resolution, though
one of the conditions-thclllost essential of all for the teacherhad certainly nol been ohscrwd, for she had not been heard by
her Bishop in her own defence. Note, secondly, that it was the
3Ianager, i.e.. the complainant in the case, who makes the
arrangement for the judicial hearing of the case-a most unusual
procedure. ?>Iote also that the letter summoning the teacher to
appear before the Bishop does not set out the charges which she
has to answer, and note, finally, the threat formally repeated in
his letter that if the Cilse went against her before the Cardinal
she would be dismissed, not only from the Principalship but
from any position in the school. . I respectfully submit that in
making this threat he was usurping the powers and functions of
the Court to whom the case was about to be submitted. It was
one further attempt, in my humble view, to coerce or induce the
* See Appendix Il, page 23.
14.
teacher to refrain from putting her case before her Bishop, as she
. .
was entitled to do by the laws of her Church.
I was appointed by the Executive to accompany Mrs. Keenan"
and assist her in making her defence before the Cardinal, and
on the date mentioned-December 27th-we went to Armagh,
and met His Eminence. He appointed his Vicar-General,
Right Rev. Dean MacDonald, P.P., V.G., Dungannon, to hear
what we had to say. I will not describe what took place at this
interview but I shall read for you a letter which I addressed to
His EmiJi.ence on the day following the interview, and befOl\e his
decision on the case was announced. The letter is as follows : " Irish National Teachers' Organisation,
9 Gal'diner Place, Dublin,
28th December, 1938.
His Eminence Cardinal MacRory,
Ara CoeH, Armagh.
May it please Your Eminence,
As General Secretary of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation,
I feel it incwnbent on me to place be{ore Your Eminence certain
observations arising out of the interview whieh took place at Ma.
Coeli yesterday, and which, in my opinion, will become the subject
of serious consideration by my Executive, and by the general body of
Catholic teachers in the country_
Ever since the I Maynooth Resolution' was formulated and accepted
by the Organisation as a protection against arbitrary action on the
:part of an individual Manager, the teachers have attached very great.
Import~nce to the question of the procedure to be adopted when it
becomes necessary to invoke that protection. Your Eminence will, no
doubt, remember the i,ncidents which induced the Bishops to adopt a
revised form of the Resolution in June, 1916, 1Vhen it was laid down
that 'before a teacher is dismissed, or served with notice of dismissal,
the teacher would be given an opportunity of making his defence before
the Bishop.' Since that time especially..' the Organisation has always
regarded the Bi~hop as the. tribunal betore whom the teacher has the
right to appear and make his defence, after the Manager has put
forward the specific reasons on w.hich he grounds his applisation for
permission tQ serve the dismissal notice.
It is essential, if the teacher is to be afforded an opportunity of
making his de{ence, that he should know beforehand all the charges
which have been made against him, and/or all the reasons which the
Manager has put forward in support of his application. It has become
the recQgnised practice, in cases involving the Maynooth Resolution,'
for the Bishop himself to summon the teacher :to appear before him,
informing 'him at the same time of the Manager's' application for
permission to serve a dismissal notice, and se.tting out specifically
the grounds on which that application was based. I have been present
on occasions when the Bishop, sitting as a Court, heard not only the
Manager and the teacher, but a number o{ witnesses who had been
summoned by. each side in support of their"case. I venture humbly
to suggest that such procedure is essential if the teachers are to have
that full and complete confidence in the efficacy of :the Maynooth
Resolution which is so necessary for the continuance of the cordial
relations which at present happily exist between the Ecclesiastical
Authori.ties and the teaching body.
I trust Your Eminence will pardon me if I express the view that in
som~ aspect~ of thE' cas~ which was the subject of discussion at
.• ti
15
•
yesterday's interview, there has been a wide divergence from this
recognised procedure.
In the first place, the Manager notified the teacher of her removal
from the Principalship of Kil1ean School before she had any opportunity
to appear before Your Eminence. When doing so, he informed her that
Your Eminence had approved of the' arrangements' he proposed to
make with regard to the staffing of the Killean Schools. True, it was
a verbal notice, but when the teacher reminded him of her three months
agreement, and of her right to appear before her Bishop, he said, in
effect, 'You may go to the Cardinal if you wish, but if you do you
\vill forfeit your chance of the assistantship.'
On Friday, 16th
December, he definitely ordered Mrs. Keenan to assume duty on
2nd January, as assistant in her own school" at the same time instructing the assistant in the boys' school to taKe the -position from which
he proposed to remove ::\1rs. Keenun. Though it could be held that
such a notice was null and void, and could not operate to remove Mrs.
Keenan from the Principalship, m~' Executive deemed it advisable
at this stage, in order to avoid a possible scene in the school on
January 2nd, to cOllllllunicate formally "'ith the )Iunager, and point
out to him that his action was entirely irregular, having regard to
the terms of the l\fa:rnooth Hesolution. In the course of his reply he
stated that he had already complied with his obligations in virtue of
the Maynooth Synod, and had already told 1\11's. Keenan that the way
was open to her to a-ppear before Your Eminence, and that as ,she had
not done so he had that day formally notified her that Your Eminence
would receive hc-r and heal' he/' de/encr on Tuesday. December 27th, at
2 p.m. He continued as follou's: . If she fails to keep this appointment,
or, keeping it, fails to make good her defence, I shall forthwith serve
her with a three calendar months' notice to determine her employment,
on the expiration of which her employment will cease, and she will be
without any position or employment in the school.'
Though it was {:onsidercd unusual that the summons to appear at
A1"magh had 110t come direct hom Your Eminence, and though Mrs.
Keenan would be f'utitled to ask to be supplied beforehand with the
Manager's reasons for proposing to dismiss her, my Executive decided
to advise her to keep this appointment. Your Eminence will, however, notice the terms of the extract fro111 the l\1anager's letter to me,
l.vhich in substance were repeated in the letter addressed to the
teacher; neither in the letter to me nor in that sent to lVII'S. Keenan
was there any reference to the reasons on l.vhich the Manager grounded
his ca:;e for dismissal.
I did not, and do not, question the right of Your Eminence to
depute Dean lVIacDonald to hear the case which the teacher had to
make, though I do say that, in view of the grave issues involved the
teachers would prefer that in all such cases the Bishop, himself should
heal' both parties directly, before arriving at his decision. 'In the
secular courts, the judges alwa:vs attach the greatest importance to
having the principals in the case, as well as their witnesses, actually
before them, and their attitude and demeanour is taken into account in
assessing the value to be placed on their statements. When I informed
Dean MacDonald at the outset that we were in a difficulty, because we
did not 1. w what charges we had to meet, he assured me that there
were no charges of any kind, that the whole matter hinged on the
question of the nature of Mrs. Keenan's appointment five years ago.
D~an MacDona.ld took brief notes of what we had to say in regard to
thIS, and promIsed that these would be ,placed before Your Eminence,
and would be very carefully considered before any decision was made.
It was, therefore, a matter of no small surprise to me to learn from
Your Eminence, in the course of the conversation which took place as
we were about' to leave, and before Your Eminence had had any
opportunity o( learning from Dean l\faeDonald the nature of the case
16
which had been made on behalf of the teacher J that, as you alre~dy.
lmew the whole facts of the case from the Manager, you had no optIon
but to give him the required permission to serve a three months' notice,
unless some agreement were coine to between us. When I urged, that
there were no reasons why this teacher should be -removed from a
pos!tion which ·she had held for five years, Your Erqinence will remem~er
Baymg that there were 'other reasons.' That was the first suggestIOn
we had of 'other reasons,' and when I asked what they were Your
Eminence s~ted that it 'was charged against her that she had
attempted in some way to interfere with the attendance by oalling the
roll before the proper time. I most humbly and respectfully urge that
it is not fair to the_teacher or to her advisers, that a charge of that
kind, which had evidently been put before Your Eminence to influence
your decision, should remain undisclosed up to- that stage; nor can it
be said to accord with the accepted principles of fair play to suggest
that she should meet that charge there and then. I had not previously
heard o-f the incident referred to. I have since made inquiry, and have
learned that on one occasion, at roll call _time, the Assistant in the
school observed to _the Principal, who was about to call the roll
, IAre you not before the time P' Apart from the fact that the Principai
is entirely responsible £or the school records, and that such an observation might well be regarded as an impertinence on the part of the
Assistant, the position is that in the absence of a school clock,., the
official school time is regulated by the Principal's watch and the
Principal is entitled to order the work of the school in accordance with
her own watch, and no subordinate teacher has the right to question it.
To the charge that she was.... endeavouring to lower the average
of the school, she answers that she gave every possible help and
co-operation in the ejforts which succeeded in raising the average "for
the June and September quarters to the figure which warranted the
promotion of the Junior Assistant Mistress to the position of Assistant,
which she now occupies. She says further that as it has been the
practice for the past two months or more for the two Curates to go out
in the mOJ:ning~ and bring children to school in their cars, and as they
frequently arrived at the school round about roll call time, it would be
impossible £or her, even if she so wished, to indulge in any irregularities
in regard to the rolls.
One might reasonably expect that if a report of this kind reached
the Manager he would have made inquiry himself, or have asked the
Ministry to make inquiry into its truth or otherwise, before using it
AS a reason for the teacher's removal, and', above all, that failing such
an inquiry, it should not be made the subject of an undisclosed charge
against the teacher, 01' urged as a reason for her dismissal.
.
I respectfully suggest to Your Eminence that there are elements in
this case, and in the manner in which· it has been treated, which will
cause the greatest possible uneasiness to the general body of Catholic
teachers. I write before the decision of Your Eminence has been
formally notified, and I desire to say that in my humble opinion, there
are factors operating in regard to the case which deserve the fullest
and most searching inquiry. I am reluctantly compelled to say,
irrespective of what the final decision will be, 'that the procedure which
has been adopted in dealing with this case cannot be regarded as satis·
factory from the teachers' point of view, and that it may have the
effect of shaking that confidence which they have hitherto placed in the
measure of protection which is afforded to them by :the Maynooth
Resolution.
I have the honour to remain,
Your most humble and obedient servant,
.
(Sgd.) '1'. J. O'CONNELL,
General Secretary,"
.,
,~
...
~..
-
'/
17
Ta that leter the following reply was received from His
Eminence:" Ara Coeli,
Armagh,
Decem ber 30th, 1938.
}Il'. T. J. 0' O'Connell,
General Secretary,
Irish National Teachers' Organisation,
9 Gardiner Place,
Dublin.
Dear Mr. O'Connell,
I recei,"ed yesterday your letter of the 28th inst., and in courtesy to
yourself and your Association I write these few lines in reply. But I
must remind ~·ou that I have delegated my Vicar-General to act for
me in the case of :Mrs. Keenan and it is to him you should write.
r never for a moment regarded the agreement with your Association
as binding the Bishops personally to hear such cases. In appointing
Right Rev. l\fgr. Dean :MacDonald, P.P., V.G., to represent me, I
fully believed I was appointing a man who would be most acceptable to
you and your Association, for he is not only the Ecclesiastic in the
diocese after myself, but also the son o{ a teacher and the brother of a
teacher.
As to Canon :NlcNally's reasons for not appointing Mrs. Keenan
Permanent Principal Teacher, he will answer for himself. What I told
you and Mrs. Keenan just before you left here on Tuesday, regarding
the marking of the Rolls, wa,s meant to show both of you that there
is great danger of his not appointing her even as an Assistant unless
a peaceful settlement is now reached. I still believe there is that
danger, and it is my honest opinion that you ought to advise her for
her own sake to take what has been offered her.
My information is that more than one person is prepared to sweclf'
to the truth of the charge in relation to the Rolls, and to swear that
Mrs. Keenan was in no mistake about the actual time of day, and if
that charge he proved in an inquiry :Mrs. KeE'l1an n,-ill probably get
no appointment from Canon McNall~t or anybody else.
I remain, dear l\1r. O'Connell,
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.)
J. CARDINAL MAcRORY.
+
i
P.S.-I trust this letter will ellrl this correspondence as far as I am
concerned. "
•
I don't propose to offer any comments on either of these
communications. They speak for themselves.
On the evening of the interview, December 27th, a letter was
addressed by Dean MacDonald to the Manager, authorising
him to dismiss Mrs. Keenan from her position as Temporary
Principal of Killean School-note the words of that authorisation. A similar letter was sent to Mrs. Keenan. * On December
28th, the Manager served a notice on the teacher, dismissing
her from her position as teacher in Killean School t-again
* See Appendix
Ill, page 25.
t See Appendix IV, page 25.
18
note the terms of this notice as compared with the official letter
addressed to the Manager by the Very Rev. D~an. The
Executive say, and they ask you to say with them, that in dismissing this teacher in the circumstances I have described,
.Canon MacNally's action was a harsh, unwarranted and
arbitrary exercise of managerial authority.
On January 7th, the Executive held a special meeting to consider the case, and the following statement was forwarded to
His Eminence:"PROPOSED DiSMISSAL OF MRS. KEENAN, KILLEAN
GIRLS' P.E.S.
STATEMENT ADOPTED AT A SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE EXECUTIVE, JANUARY 7th, 1939, FOR SUBMISSION TO illS EMINENCE CARDINAL MacRORY.
I. Having considered fully all the facts and circumstances
connected with the proposed dismissal of Mrs. Keenan from
the Principalship of Killean Girls' P.E.S., Newry, including the
General Secretary's report of his visit to Armagh on
December 27th, and subsequent correspondence, the Executive
are forced reluctantly to the conc1usion that in the application
of the Maynooth Resolution to this case there has been a wide
divergence from the procedure and practice as hitherto
adopted, and as understood and believed by the teachers to be
essential for its acceptance 'by them as a satisfactory tribunal
where the question of tenure is involved.
They are driven to this conclus10n because of the
foJrlJwing facts:(1) The Manager O'1"rkred the teacher to vacate her position
as principal of the school before she had been heard by her
Bishop in her own defence.
(2) The Manager stated, and the statement has not been
questioned, that her Bishop (i.e., His Eminence the Cardinal)
had been informed, and had apptroved of the ' arrangements'
which he (the Manager) proposed to make-such ' arrangements ' involving the teacher's dismissal.
(3) ,When the Manager's attention was called to the irregularity of dismissing the teache;r in disregard of the provisions
of the Maynooth Resolution, he replied that he had already
complied with his obligations in virtue of the Maynooth Synod,
though up to that time the teacher had not been summoned
t.o appear before her Bishop to make her defence.
(4) When the teacher, on being ordered to vacate her position, referred to her signed agreement, and the Maynooth Reso-
.•
19
•
•
lution, the Manager intimated that an appeal to the 0ardinal
would deprive her of the opportunity of filling even a subordinate position in the school. This threat, which was repeated in
his letters to the General Secretary and to the teacher, written
on December 22nd. has now been embodied in the notice served
on her on December 28th.
(5) The teacher was not summoned by her Bishop to appear
before him in her own defence The notification that she would
be so received, accompanied by the above-mentioned threat,
came from the Manager.
(6) At no time have the reasons for her removal been
formally submitted to her. In fairness, she should have· been
made aware of these before being called on to make her
defence.
(7) The teacher has not been heard by her Bishop (i.,e.,
His Eminence the Cardinal) in her own defence. While not
presuming to question the right of the Bishop in such cases
to delegate his authority to another person, the Executive wish
it to be known that this Organisation had hitherto understood
and believed that the teacher in all such cases would ' be heard
in his own defence by the B;,;hop '.
(8) His Eminence before he bad an opportunity of knowing
what the teacher's defence in this case was, informed the
General Secretary and the teacher concerned that he knew all
the facts of the case, and that he was prepared to give the
necessary permission to serve the three months' notice, and
that unless there was some agreement the Manager was not
likely to give the teacher any appointment in these schools .
. (9) Though Dean MacDonald, who was delegated to hear the
teacher's defence, had definitely informed the General Secretary and the teacher at the outset that, allart from the nature
of her appointment to the principalship in 1933, there were no
reasons for her removal, and that no charges of any kind were
alleged against her, His Eminence later on informed the
General Secretary and the teacher that there were, in fact,
, other reasons " and mentioned one such reason-a charge'of
irregularity in regard to the calling of the school roll. The
teacher had never previously heard of this charge, and had not
been given an opportunity to meet it. Tbe fact tbat it was
mentioned by His Eminence, and repeated in his letter on
December 30th to the General Secretary, shows the importance
which His Eminence attached to this allegation.
(10) The decision to give permission for the service pf a
dismissal notice on the teacher was not made by her 13is:'op,
even though it had. the Bishop '8 approv!!l,
.
1
,
i
.
20
'm
'
,
(11) The Manager by this decision was merely informed
that there was nothing to prevent him from giving' Mrs.
Keenan a three months' notice of dismissal ' trom her position
as Ten!-p<Jj"ary Princip&, of KiUean Girls' Scihool '. The agreement, which was signed on May 1st, 1934, by both parties to
the contract, and which was afterwards approved by the
Northern Ministry, showed that the teacher was appointed as
'Principal Teacher' of Killean Girls' School.
The nQtice
served on December 28th is not, therefore, in accordance with
the terms of the decision notified to the Mana.ger by Dean
MacDonald. Purporting tu act On that decision, the Manager
has now served her with notice of dismissal from her employment' as teacher of Killean Girls' P.E.S.' Had the notice been
served in the terms' of the decision conveyed to the Manager'il
by Dean MacDonald, it would be legally null and void, inasmuch as it would purport to remove her from a ·position which
she did not, according to the material evidence, at any time
occupy, viz., that of ' Temporary Principal '.
IT. The Executive, having fully considered..all the available
evidence in this case, are satisfied that there is no justification
for the removal of Mrs. Keenan from the position which she
has successfully occupied for over five years, and that her re_moval from that position would constitute a harsh, unfair and
arbitrary exercise of authority on the part of her Manager.
They cannot admit that a mere condition made by the
Ministry to the effect that in 'a contingency which, in fact, has
never arisen, c,ertain payments could not be claimed .by the
teacher, could have any relevance to the relations between the
Manager and the teacher, nor could it operate in any way to
affect the contract signed by both Manager and teacher.
The letter from His Eminence, dated, December 30th, 1938,
refers to the Manager's reason 'for not appointing Mrs.
Keenan Permanent Principal Teacher '. It is respectfully submitted that as there is no vacancy in the Principalship of
Killean Girls' SchQol, the question at issue is not the appointmR!/tt of Mrs. Keenan to that position, but rather her removal
from it.
The Executive are satisfied that while she continues to give
efficient service, she can be removed from that position only
by direct action of the Manager, and that in so far as permanency is concerned, any teacher appointed to succeed her can
he given no greater permanency than that which at present
attaches to Mrs. Keenan.
ITl. .Believing as they do that there are no good and sufficient reasons for the removal of Mrs. Keena,n from the
fri)lll;palship of Killean Girls' School, allil as no charge of
•
21
misconduct or inefficiency has been formally made or sustaIned
against her, the Executive could not see their way to advise
her to accept the Manager's original proposals, even if that
alternative were still open to her. To do so would be to
acknowledge that a Manager is justified in removing a teacher
from his position without cause assigned, and without any
.charge of misconduct or-inefficiency having been sustained
against him. It would involve the surrender of a position which
the Organisation has endeavoured to maintain during the
seventy years of its existence, ·and which it had every reason
to hope it would never again be called on to defend. The
Executive would much regret if their advice would operate to
Mrs. Keenan's detriment so far as her future teaching career
is concerned, but should that be so, the Org'anisation would
feel it incumbent on it to see that in pursuance of a course
which it considered essential in the interests of all its members
no individual teacher would be allowed to suffer in so far as
the Organisation is in a 129sition to prcwnt it.
•
IV. Having reg-ard to the views and representations set forth
above, the Executive most humbly request his Eminence to
review the decision come to in this case, with the object of
ensuring' that IIfrs. K~enan will be continued in her present
position during good conduct and efficiency."
No reply was received from the Cardinal, personally, but
Dean MacDonald wrote to say that the statement had been
handed to him to deal with, and, later, he informed us that
after the fullest consideration of the position, and all the -circumstances, he was not prepared to alter his original decision.*
There is little more to say, except this-that in the meantime
informal efforts and approaches have been made in influential
quarters. to induce the :V1anager to wit-hdraw the dismiss.al
notice. These efforts have come to noug·ht. On :l'1arch 28th,
Mrs. Keenan was ordered to surrender the keys of her school,
and on March 29th, a new Principal was installed in her place.
One finds it difficult to express in measured or temperate language the sense of unfairness which is felt as a result of this
arbitrary dismissal of an efficient teacher. We can only express
our surprise and pain that the dismissal should have received
the authorisation necessary to make it effective.
The Organisation would be untrue to its tradition, and to
the memory of the men whose efforts brought about the virtual
security which teacbers now enjoy, if it did not enter its most
emphatic protest against the victimisation of this teache1'for that it is victimisation we have no hesitation in saying.
But, while we are naturally indigoant Vhat one of our mem• Se. Appendix V, page 25.
bel's should be treated in this fashion, and while, especially, we
cannot -be other than disappointed that the machinery· of the
'Maynooth Resolution has failed to protect her against the
arbitrary action of her Manager, I feel that there is no cause
for uneasiness. After all, serious and all as it is, it is -but an
isolated case. I am no:w almost 23 years General Secretary
of the Organisation, 'and this is my first experience in all those
years of arbitrary dismissal by a Catholic ·Clerical Manager.
That is a record that is worth noting, ·and that must not be
forgotten.
Attempted or threatened dismissals there have
been, no doubt, but in all such cases the M·aynooth Resolution
operated to save the teacher from injustice.
I should like to say here that we have. never regarded the
Maynooth Resolution as a one-sided pact, to be accepted only
when the Bishop decided in favour of the teacher. There have
been cases w.here the Manager was given the necessary permission to remove a teacher, and where the I.N.T.O. accepted
that decision without demur or protest, because the teacher was
afforded the fullest and fairest opportunity of meeting the
charges against him, and the justice of the decision was apparent to all. In this case, the complaint is not alone against the
decision itself, but more especially against the general procedure adopted in putting the Maynooth Resolution into operation.
'I should like, before concluding, to say one other word. The
relations between ourselves and the Ecclesiastical Authorities,
both Episcopal and Clerical, were never so close or cordial as
they are at the present time, and while we must resent, and
protest as strongly as we can against, this individual breach
in the citadel whi<l'h they and we have jointly erected for the
maintenance and fostering of those essential relations, I would
be sorry, indeed, to think that this isolated incident-for it is
an isolated incident-would mar in any way that fine feeling
of cordiality and mutual goodwill which has been ·built up
between the Ecclesiastical Authorities and the teachers, and
which has been growing in strength from year to year.
In this discussion, or arising out of it, let nothing, therefore,
be said that would in any' way lessen or interfere with that
good feeling. Our protest will lose nothing in dignity-it will
be none the less strong if expressed in restrained and temperate
language. This is the resolution whi0h it is my duty to propose to you for your· adoption:
Cl That,
haVing heard the circumstances in which Mrs. Eleanor
Keenan has been dismissed from the Principalship: of Killean Girls'
School by her Manager, the Very Rev. Oa.non McNally, P.P., Kille ..vey,
Newry, and having learned that no charge of any kina hae bean formulated against her Wt;;. the representati-.,es of the teachers of all Ireland,
in Congress assembled, declare the dismissal of this efficient teacher to
J
be a'harsh, unwarranted and aIlbitrar!
exercis~
of Managerial authoritr!
23
and that we are surprised and pained that this action of the Manager
should have received the acquiescence and approval which Was necessary
under the provisions of the Maynooth Statutes to make th~ dismissal
effective; furthermore, we are of opinion that the manner in which the
provisions of the Maynooth Resolution were applied and operated in
this case was such as to render it practically ineffective as a measure
of protection for the teacher concerned. n
[The Resolution was seconded by Mr. M-artin Leyden, incoming President, and having been put to the meeting was
unanimously adopted.]
APPENDICES
f'
~.
It is thought advisable that the documents and correspondence referred to, or briefly summarised by the General
Secretary in the course of his address, should be set out here.
They are as follows:APPENDIX I.
(Extract from Agreement made be,tween Manager and Tea;;h,r).
" MEMORANDUM OF AN AGREEMENT, made the 1st (first) . . . . .
day of May, One Thous.and Nine Hundred and 34 (thirty-four), between
Rev. Canon F. McNally. Local Manager of the Killean Girls' Public
Elementary School (hereinafter called the Manager), of the one part,
and Eleanor C. Keenan, Teacher of the said School (hereinafter called
the Teacher), of the other part:
1. The ].tlanager agrees to employ the Teacher as the Principal
Teacher of the Killean Girls' School, from the 1st (first) day of
December, 1933, henceforth until the expiration of three calendar
months from the date at which notice in writing shall have been given
by either side to the other to determine the said employment . . . . "
(The Agreement was executed on May 1st, 1934 and registered at
the Office of the Ministry of Education, Belfast, on May 2nd, 1934).
APPENDIX H.
(Lett~r
-
/l'om I.N.T.O. to Manager).
Irish National Teachers' Organis,ation,
Head Office,
9 Gardiner Place,
Dublin.
Decembe1', 19th, 1938.
Very Rev. F. Canon McNally, P.P.,
Mountain Lodge, Newry.
Very Rev. Sir,
It has been brought to the notice of the above Organisation that you,
as Manager of the Killean Girls' School, have verbally informed the
Principal of the school-Mrs. Keenan-that her services as Principal
Teacher are to be terminated at the end of the Christmas vacation.
If this information is correct, I would respectfully point out that such
•
24
procedur,e would be contrary to the arrangement and understanding
entered into over forty years ago between the Bisho~ and the Te~cherBJ
Organisation. The terms of that arrangement, which has now come to
be known -as the ' Maynooth Resolution,' are now as you are no doubt
aware, embodied in tbe decrees of the Maynooth Synod (No. 387, 1927).
This arrangement has Ibeen most strictly observed between the Religious
Authorities and the teachers since it was first promulgated; and it has
always been interpreted in the sense that before a teacher IS dismissed,
or served with nc,uce of dismissal, he must be given the opportunity
of being heard in his own defence by the Bishop of the diocese. Mrs.
Keenan, I understand, has not been served with notice in writing, in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement which she signed at the
time of her appointment as Principal, but if it is true that she has
been verbally ordered to vacate her position then it is our duty on
behalf .of one of our members, to call attention to the procedure whlch
has for all these years governed the relations between Catholic Clerical
Managers and the teachers employed in their schools.
Though it is understood that no specific charges have been m1tde",
against Mrs. Keenan, either on the score of conduct or efficiency, which:
would warrant her removal from the Principalship of this school, it is
not proposed at -this stage to enter into the merits of the case. The
appropriate -occasion for doing so would be if and when she were notified
by His ;Eminence to appear before him in her own defence.
On !behalf not alone of this tea-eher, but of all our 12,000 members,
the Organisation is particularly desirous to ensure that if a teacher is
to be removed from her position it will be done only in accordance with
the procedure which ha.s had the sanction of the Episcopal Authorities
for over forty years.
If I may introduce a personal note, I should like to say that during
the twenty-two years which I have held the pooition of General Secretary of the Teachers' Organisation, I can trutlifuIly say that no Catholic
teacher has been removed from his or her position by a Manager, except
in strict accordance with the terms of the Maynooth Resolution, and
that not onc'~ in all that time has a teacher been so removed by a.
Manager, except in circumstances which were fully warranted, and to
which no exception was taken by the Organisation.
My Executive-which have directed me to send this communication,find it difficult to believe that it is your inoontion to do anything which
would be inconsistent with that honourable record. They tr1J.st, therefore, that it is only necessary to co~icate with you in oraer to get
an assurance from you that Mrs. Keenan will be continued in her
present position as Principal of Killean School. If, however, for reasons
of which we are not 11ware, you still contemplate removing her from
that position, then my Executive must ~sk that the terms of the Maynooth Resolution would be strictly observed, and it will become their
duty to inform Mrs. Keenan ~hat any notice, verbal or otherwise~ which
is not in accordance with that Resolution, would be null and VOId, a~d
as such is to Ibe disregarded by her.
As it is important that the teru:;:her should know ,as early as possible
what her poSition is to be when the school reopens iJ' +,he New Y.ear,
my Executive would ask especially for the favour of a .....ply by FrIday
next.
I am, Very Rev. Sir;
Faithfully yours,
,
{Sgd.}-T. J. O'OONNELL,
General Secretary."
25
APPENDIX Ill.
(Letter from Dean ~vlacDonald to J11"8. Keenan).
" Ara Caeli,
Armagh.
27/12/'38.
Dear )tIrs. Keellan,
Having" been delegated by His Eminence to take a statement of your
case, at the interview ·with Mr. O'Connell and yourself to-day, I wrote
down carefully what Mr. O'Co11nel1 and yourself had to say on the
matter, and read over for you what was written down.
Afterwards, I considered carefully the whole statement, and have
come to the conclusion that there is nothing in it to prevent Canon
MeN ally from giving you the usual three months notice of dismissal
from your position as temporary Principal of Killean Girls' School.
I should say that before coming to the decision I showed -the said
statement to his Eminence, who carefplly examined it, and said he fully
agreed with my decision. A copy of thIS letter is being sent to Canon
McNally.
I remain,
Dear Mrs. Keenan,
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) Thomas Dean MacDonald, P.P., V.G.
APPENDIX IV.
(Copy of Dismissal Notice).
Mountain Lodge,
Newry,
28th December, 1938.
Dear Mrs. Keenan,
In virtue of an Agreement, made between us, !lIS Teacher and Manager
of Killean Girls' Public Elementary School, dated the first day of May,
1934, and in keeping with ita terms, I hereby give you notice that on
the expiration of three calendar months from the date of this notice,
your employment as Teacher in Killean Girls' P.E.S., shall cease.
.
(Sgd.) F. Canon MacNally,
llIanaaer.
Dated this 28tli day of December, 1938.
Mrs. Eleanor C. Keenan,
Killean Girls' P.E. School.
•
APPENDIX V.
(Dean lIfacDonald's Reply to Executive Stc.ttement) ..
(Copy) .
Dungannou,
19/1/'39'..
Dear Dr. Q'Connell,
I enclose a document which speaks for itself.
scientiously give a different decision.
(Sgd.)
Sorry I could not
COTI-.
Yours sincerely,
Th"". Dean MacDonald.
[ENOLOSURE.]
'tHE CASE OF MRS. KEENAN-Kn.LEAN, P.E.S.
Statement from the Executive of the I.N.T.O., dated 7th January,
1939, was forwarded to His EminElnce Cardinal MacRory, with a
request to review the decision in above case. His Eminence handed me
the statement, delegated and directed me to acknowledge its receipt,
and review the case in order to see if the decision could be reversed. His
Eminence said -he, himself, would not take up the case, and that my
decision would be his decision.
I -have, therefore, considered carefully aH the points of the statement.
r am quite satisfied that at the time the decision was made, the requirements nf the Maynooth Statute were substantially fulfilled. The points,
therefore} in the Executive statement referring to that-cannot in fairness be sustained. The other points in the statement appear to me to
b~ either irreleva.nt or an unreasonalble .interpretation of words used.
Ha.vin~ cOD:.sidered carefully again and again the whole statement of the
E:recutlve, which claims that the Executive " considered fully" all the
facts and circumstances of the case, I can find in it no valid or sufficient
'reason to justify me in reversing my previous decision, which, like the
present decision, is also the decision of the Cardinal (it was submitted
to him and approved of by him).
r~ therefore, hereby cc.nfirm my previous decision in the above case.
(Sgd.)
Thomas Dean MacDonald, P.P., V.G.
Dungannon,
19th January, 1939.
APPENDIX VI.
" Ministry of "Education,
Belfast.
'.
18th IJecentber, 1933.
Ref. lIlo. Ej944jl.
County Armagh.
Roll No. 944
Killean Girls' Public Elementary School.
Madam,
I am directed by the Minister of EduGation to inform you that, 011
the application of .the Manager of the above-named school, you have
been recognised as temporary principal teacher in this school as from
the 30th November, pending consideration of the question of the
amalgamation of Killean Boys' and Girls Public Elementary Schools..
I am to state that :vou will, as temporary principal teacher, be
entitled to Annual Capitation Grant, but you will not be entitle~ to
this grant if the schools are amalgamated.
I am. l\iadam.
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.)
Mrs. Eleanor C. Keenan,
Killean Girls' Public Elementary School,
Flunybridge,
Newry."
HUGH O. LOVE,
.
for Assistant Secretary.
.:;']"
...
~
It was generally recognised that the General Secretary had
given the delegates a restrained and impartial statement of
the circumstances which had led up to the dismissal of Mrs.
Keenan, and it is not necessary to enlarge on that statement
of the case to any great extent. It should, however, he remarked that the Secretary's reference to the efforts which he
and the Executive had made to secure a revision of the dismissal notice, and thus obviate the necessity of having the
facts brought before the Congress, was a very modest account
of what had actually been done. Various influential people,
among them high ecclesiastical dignital~es, had been
approached, both by the Executive itself and by others at its
instigation, with a view to having the decision revised and the
dismissal notice withdrawn. It is known that those who were
thus approached made earnest and genuine, but unsuccessful,
efforts in that direction, but their expressed desire that their
interference should be regarded as confidential, and that they
should remain anonymous, must be respected. The final effort
to secure an understanding may, howeyer, be related. In the
Standing Orders governing procedure at t.he Annual Congress
of the I.N.T.O., it is provided that the Report vf the Executive
in which its activities during the year are recounted, should be
discussed by the delegates on the opening day, and in the
ordinary course of events this dismissal case would have been
brought before the Congress on the Tuesday of that week. . A
request was, however, received from a number of delegates
that, 4n order to enable a last effort to be made to effe ..t a
settlement, the discussion should be postponed until later in
the week. To this the Executive readily agreed. It transpired that delegates who belonged to a well-known Catholic
social organisation had met and had appointed one of their
number TO aet as their representative. While no formal report
was thereafter presented to Congress, it is known that the
teacher so appointed, who had gone in the first instance to
interview his OWn Manager, was fortunate in meeting His
Eminence during the interview, and that this case was discussed at some considerable length. The only information conveyed to the Executive following this visit was that the situation remained unehanged. Consequently no COl1rse remained
to the Executive but to place the facts before the delegates
as they were in duty bound to do,
,
STATEMENT BY THE MANAGER-CANON McNALLY
The statement made to the Congress received wide publicity in
the Press, and the ease was the subject of discussion at a meeting
of the Arma.gh Provincial Council Df the Catholic Clerical
Managers' Association. A report of this meeting appeared in
the public Press on May 29th, 1939. It consisted in the main
of a statement submitted to the meeting by the Very Rev.
Canon McNally, P.P., the Manager of Killean School. This
report was later embodied in a pamphlet and circulated rather
widely to managers, teachers and others. Tbe following is a
copy of the report as it appeared in pamphlet form :"THE ARMAGH PROVINCIAL COUNCIL OF CATHOLIC
CLERICAL MANAGERS, AT ITS ANNUAL MEETING
-IN DUNDALK, HAD UNDER CONSIDERATION A
STATEMENT FROM VERY REVD. f. CANON McNALLY
ON THE APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS IN KILLEAN
PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
lVIOuNTAIN LODGE,
NEWRY.
6th ."4lay, 1939.
o
SECRETARY,
Armagh Provincial Council
Ca tholic Clerical Managers.
•
I understand you have on your agenda for the meeting of the
Managers' Provincial Council, to be held in Dundalk on TuesdaJ,
tbe 9th instant, the case of dismissal of a teacher, treated and
published by the I.N.T.O. Congress held in Belfast last month.
In view of the misleading statement made to Congress, and the
ponderous resolution resting, as itself confesses, on 'circumstances heard', I beg to state for the information of your
Council the few essential facts of the ease, and to supply you
with documentary evidence in proof of same.
The School in question is Killean P.RS. The teacher removed
is lVlrs. E. Keenan. The Manager is F. Canon McNally.
Towards the end of 1933 a vacancy occurred on the death of
The
the principal-'Mrs. ONeiIl-a highly efficient teacher.
Ministry had already listed this School and the adjoining Boys'
School for amalgamation on the occurrence of a vacancy in
either.
28
··m··
<
.,
29
The Manager' interviewed the Ministry on the question of
amalgamation and appointment of teacher. He convinced the
Ministry that amalgamation could not be carried out until
structural changes, providing suitable accommodation, were
made.
The Ministry pointed out that, in conformity with tbe Rules
and Regulations governing such cases, 'no appointment could
bc made except in a temporary capacity until the question of tbe
need for separate schools has been decided by the Ministry.'
(See Regulations Section 14a quoted below).
Under these circumstances I appointed Mrs. Keenan-then
assistant in the school-to 'be temporary principal, and appointed
a temporary junior assistant mistress in her place.
Here is a copy of my letter to the Ministry on the occasion :, Mountain Lodge,
Newry,
14th November, 1933.
E. 944/1.
Co. Armagil..
Roll No. 944
KiIlean Gs. P.E.S.
The Secretary,
Ministry of Education, N. 1.
Sir,
I am in receipt of your letter of the 11th instant, and in view of what
it conveys I have appQinted Mrs. E. Keenan (assistant) to be temporary
principal, and Miss Farren (pt:esent locum tenens) to be temporary
junior assistant mistress in above-named school-both appointments to
take effect from the 30th instant., the date on which Miss Farrell's term
of office as locum tenens will expire.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd,) F. McNALLY, Manager.'
To this letter the Ministry replied : , ,,\Vith reference to your letter of the 14th instant. I am directed by
the Minister for Education to inform you that, pending the consideration of the question of amalgamation of the above-named schools, the
Ministry is prepared to sanction the temporary appointments of Mrs.
Eleanor C. Keenan and Miss Ann,ie T. Farrell, as principal teacher and
junior assistant mistress, respectively, in Killean GjrIs' Public Elemen~
tary 8chool as from the 30th instant. 1 (Extract from Ministry's letter
to Manager dated 23rd November, 1933).
In October, 1938, I had a conversation with Mrs. Keenan in
her school, and told her I was anxious to !l"et the KiIIean schools
from under the shadow of amalgamatIOn-that the present
;tverages in both schools entitled me to make new appointments
and that I intended to appoint her to resume" her former !l0s!-
•
•
30
tion as assistant in the school, Miss O'Neill in the Boys' School
to be 'Permanent principal in the Girls' School, and Miss Toner
to take the place of Miss O'Neill in the Boys' School.
Mrs; Keenan cordially agreed to resume her former position
in the Girls' School, and added: ' Perhaps I would be happier
in the Boys! School.' I said: 'Should you think so, I shall
facilitate your change to the Boys' School. There will- be no
difficulty in that.'
In proof' that Mrs. Keenan cordially agreed, I may state the
fact that before I mentilmed the matter to Miss O'N eil!, Mrs.
Keenan asked and urged her several times to make sure and
accept the principalship in the Girls: School, if offered to her
by the manager, lest he would appoint an extern teacher from
another school in the Parish.
.
Subsequent to all this I offered the principalship to Miss
O'Neill, who was rated highly efficient, and she accepted.
The matter could, and would, have ended here but for the
advice and influence of others.
Some days after, Mrs. Keenan called on the manager. She
said she would consult some friends, and showed him a set of
figures which, she said, would prove that amalgamation must
come.
The figures, she said, showed the small number of
children on the Rolls for the past several years. He said: ' You
are making out a fine case for amalgamation, but these are not
the figures I will' submit to the Ministry. I ·will submit the
average school attendance for the present year.'
She consulted her friends and her case was despatched to the
secretary of the I.N.T.O., Dublin, who graciously undertook to
relieve Mrs. Keenan of all future anxiety. Mrs. Keenan was
not to heed the sayings or doings of the manager any louger,
but to follow the instructions and advice of the general secretary.
Mrs. Keenan was no longer in the case.
Mr. O'Connell was aware that Mrs. Keenan had already agreed
with the manager to resume her former duties and position as
assistant, but contended she should deny or go back of her pro- .
mise on the grounds that she did not know her rights till informed by him.
The following are the only arguments of defence put forward
at Congress or elsewhere : 1. I\fr. Q'Collnell attempts to prove that l\.Irs. Keeoan was a permanent principal teacher. This is disproved and disposed of by
the manager's letter of the 14th November, 1933, to the Ministry,
by whioh she is appointed expressly a temporary principal-.and by
the Ministry's letter of the 23rd November, 1933, in which letter
she is twice designated 'temporary' principal.
Those letters
show she was appointed and sanctioned as a temporary principal.
(See letters enclosed and quoted above).
that she was appointed temporary principal until
amalgamation would take place, and therefore could not be
2. He tries to prove
.
31.
removed from that position till ama'lgamation actually took place.
He must never have read, or, if he did, never understood the
Regulations of the Ministry of Eduoation, Northern Ireland, under
which she was appointed in a temporary capacity, or, in other
words, a temporary teacher, pending decision of the Ministry
regarding the need for separate schools. ' Where the Ministry is
satisfied that two or more neighbouring schools can be amalgamated with advantage for reasons of education, efficiency, or
economy, it roay give notice that after such a date as the Ministry
may determine no new appointment of Ht teacher may be made
except in a temporary capacity until the question of the need for
separate schools has been decided by the Ministry.' (Regulations
for Public Elementary Schools, Northern Ireland, section 14 [Bel) ..
•
It should not be difficult to see that the temporary period of
Mrs. Keenan's appointment was to' be ended not when the
amalgamation of the two schools actually took place, but when
the Ministry gave its decision with regard to the need for
separate schools.
I had already the approval of the Ministry for making the
changes and appointments mentioned to Mrs. Keenan as before
stated, but in December, 1938, I visited the Ministry by appointment, and submitted to them for their consideration and decision
the position of Killein Schools in relation to amalgamation and
the appointment of teachers.
The Ministry decided that the two separate schools should contiIme, and that I had, on the averages shown, the right to appoint
a permanent principal in Killean Girls' School.
:ay this decision Mrs. Keenan's appointment and office as temporary teacher came to an end, and the shadow of amalgamation
disappeared.
Surely this decision shows that Mr. O'Connell's contention that
Mrs. Keenan was a:ppointed temporary teacher till amalgamation
should be actually carried out is a contention unworthy of the
General Secretary.
Mr. O'-Connell also stated that a temporary office or appointment held for five years lapses (and, I presume, he means then
becomes permanent), and that such is the practice of the
Northern Ministry.
This statement has no foundation in the theory or practice of
the Northern Ministry of Education.
I might stop here, but I beg to .make an observation, if I may,
on a few of Mr. O'Connell's statements made in Congress. He
complains that the manager 'went back five years to find [.
reaSOn to justify his action.' Mr. 0 'Connell admits the
manager found a sufficient reason to justify his action, but condemns him for going back so far. According to the General
Secretary's conception of rights, a claim in justice or justification
ceases with the lapse of five years-strange doctriue, surely.
Further, he asserts' Mrs. Keeuau was dismis~ed without being
32
afforded the opportunity of appearing before her Bishop in h'er
own defence.' This is absolutely untrue, as is clear from my
letter, quoted by him, in which I stated: ' I had already told
the teacher that the way was open for her to put her case before
the Bishop of the Diocese, if she so desired,' and now finding
that she had not appeared to make her defence I had that day
(22nd December, 1938) notified her by letter that the Bishop
would see and hear her in Am 'Coeli the following Tuesday at
2 o'clock. Does Mr. O'Connell really forget that he and Mrs.
Keenan actually appeared before the Bishop in defence?
Strange if he does!
With my letter before him, and from which he quotes, Mr.
O"Connell draws the following conclusions-(l) 'Mrs. Keenan
was dismissed without being afforded the opportunity of appearing before her Bishop in her own defence'; (2) the manager said
in effect ' you may go to the 'Cardinal if you wish, but if you
do, you will forfeit your chance of the assistantship.'
Can
anyone with reasoning faculties justify Mr. O'Connell's conclusions from the premises before him Y
My letter, which he quotes, was in reply to his letter of 19th
December, 1938--the only letter I received from him, and the
scope of which was to insist on my observance of my obligations
under the Synod of Maynooth. My letter in reply stated I had
already done so.
Further, Mr. O'Connell mentioned in his letter that he was
acting in the interest of the 12,000 members of the I.N.T.O., and
was general secretary for 22 years. My simple observation on
this was, as appears from my letter, ' The case is an unusual one
and, notwithstanding your wide elOperience, I doubt if you have
. ever had a similar case to treat.'
This observation gave the Secretary an oppO'rtunity of inquiring what the unusual factor in the case was. He never asked
to know what was the unusual nature of the case. Probably he
knew it, or did not want to know, or felt hurt by my expressed
doubt as to the scope of his vast experience. Anyhow, he never
at any time, nor did any member of the I.N.T.O., ask me for the
reason of my action. Yet the Secretary complained to Congress
that the manager never committed to writing his reason. No_
written reason was ever asked for or necessary. The very nature
of the case-the temporary appointment subject to termination
by the decision of the Ministry, and the actual decision of the
Ministry already given should be enough.
Let me say here that up to this time the question of dismissal
did not arise on the part of the Manager. The I.N.T.O. forced
the issue.
The teacher had, in the first instance, cordially agreed to resume her former position as assistant. The I.N.T.O. advisedI might say forced-her to go back of her 1lromise on the assur-
@
"','
33
ance that they would keep her in what they termed her
'present position', which at the time was practically a past
position.
Notwithstanding their action and her concurrence, I had
hoped, in the best interest of the teacher, that wiser counsel
would prevail, and on the 16th December, 1938, I met together
the three teachers concerned, confirmed their new appointments,
and asked them would they take up their new positions on the
2nd January, 1939-the date of the re-opening of the schools
after the Christmas holidays-illl's. Keenan as assistant in the
Girls' School, her former position; illiss O'Neill as permanent
principal in the Girls' School, and lIliss Toner as assistant in
place of Miss O'Neill in the Boys' School. iIliss O'Neill and
iIliss Toner said yes, lVII's, Keenan said no. I then asked Mrs.
Keenan would she take the assistantship in the Boys' School, and
she said : 'No; I will hold what I have and will take nothing
else.' She then became very indignant, and recounted some of
the gains and advantages amalg'amation would bring bel',
Sbe practically defied the manager to remove her from her
temporary position because she had occupied it for five years,
IVIr. 0 'Connell gave an echo of this doctl~ne in his speech to
Congress.
•
•
Someone suggested that I should give Mrs, Keenan a few days
10 reconsider her refusal, and I said I would give her seven days
for that purpose. She seemed pleased, and said she and her
husband would call on me next evening, but she never came.
Instead, before the seven days of grace accorded her had expired, I received on the 20th December, 1938, a letter from the
General Secretary of the I.N.T.O. forcing the issue in another
direction.
.
Let me repeat-up to this there was no question of dismissal
but the question of Mrs. Keenan returning to her former position, still open for her, in the school. The I.N.T.O. closed the
door against this,
With heroic courage, the Secretary proceeded to finish his
self-imposed task of undertaking to compel the manager to keep
Mrs. Keenan in her temporary position till amalgamation would
actually take place, though the temporary position and. office
had ceased, from its very nature and condition, and hy the
decision of the Ministry of Education.
To effect this, and for this purpose, he carried his ease to the
Ecclesiastical Court-the Bishop. His contentions there were
groundless-no fault to him-he had no case. In result, the
manager was duly notified hy the court that he could justly give
the teacher a three months' notice of dismissal, and the notice
was given her.
Mr. 0 'ConneH mixes separate events and issues, and from the
confused mass araws and leaves others to draw false con-
34
clusions. By this method of argument, he conveys to his readers
that Cardinal MacRory prejudged the case he (Mr. 0 'Connell)
submitted to his judgment.
The two events he combines in this instance are as far apart
as October and December. In October, 1938, with the approval
. of the Ministry of Education, I was prepared to make three
changes-three new appointments. Before making them I consulted the -Cardinal, as I was bound by the laws of the Maynooth
Synod. His Eminence approved of my arrangements and
appointments, which did not involve any question of dismissal.
Mr. O'Connell conveys that this approval by his Eminence was
his judgment for the dismissal of Mrs. Keenan, while no one
_ thought of dismissal for two months after, when the General
Secretary forced the case to Armagh, and made it a question of
dismissal.
His case "in December and the arrangements in
October were two separate issues.
Mr. O'Connell complains that the manager never committed
tu writing his reasons for asking Mrs. Keenan to resume her
former position. The reason was known to the teacher and her
advisers. Her temporary office had ceased-and this was an allsufficient reason.
Besides, they never asked for reasons in
writing.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the Ecclesiastical Court, it wa"
competent for Mr. O'Connell to appeal'to the Ministry of Education within six weeks after the notice of dismissal had been
served, and an inquiry would be granted to him.
, If, at any time within six weeks after a teacher in a school
to or in respect of which grants are made out of moneys provided by Parliament has been notified of dismissal from the
school, a petition is presented to the Ministry by the teacher
praying for an inqniry into the reasons for his dismissal, the
Ministry shall cause to he ma(ksnch inquiry as it thinks fit; and
if, as the result of such inquiry (at which the teaeher may be
represented) the Ministry is of opinion that the dismissal is
not reasonably justifiable, the Ministry shall communicate such
opinion to the Education authority and to the teacher, or in the
case of a Voluntary School, to the Managers or School Committee
of such school and to the teacher, with a view to a reconsideration of the decision, and, in the event of the Education authority,
managers or School Committee uot departing from their decision,
the Ministry may withhold or reduce any grant payable to or in
reS'pect of the School out of moneys provided by Parliament.'
(Section 68, Education Act (Northern Ireland), 1923}.
In pursuance of his campaign in this case, Mr. O'Connell wrote
the teacher, who, at the reqnest and urgency of Mrs. Keenan,
accepted the permanent principalship of the school in question,
threatening expulsion from the I.N.T.O. if she did not go back
of her acceptance. The teacher refused to do the dishonourable
thing, and requested him to remove her name from the list of
members. He issued Press notices-North and South-warning
teachers who may be offered a position as Principal or Assistant
in Killean School, Newry, to communicate with the Head Office,
I.N.T.O. before accepting same. It will be interesting to lVIr.
O'Gonnell to know that, in less than a week, I had forty applications from qualified teachers-several of them with a degree.
I appointed one rated as highly efficient-the one I considered
best in the interests of the School.
Signed: F. CANON lVIcNALLY.
The Council gave the statement its careful consideration,
ordered· that it be given to the P·ress, and also printed and
circulated.
The following resolutions were passed :1. That we consider the ::;tatement of Canon ~IacN ally a vindication
of his action in the Killean School appointments, and that the
resolution of the I.N.T.O. Congress, which pronounced him guilty
of 'harsh, unwarrantable and arbitrary' conduct, is undeserved.
2. That the terms of Canon 387, par. 3, Maynooth Statutes, were
complied 'With in the case, and that the Statements on this point
in the Congress resolution are not sustainable."
•
1
GENERAl. SE~RETARY'S REPLY TO MANAGER'S STATEMENT
On the day the report of the Armagh Provillcial Council
appeared in the Press, i.e., May 29th, the General Secretary, who
was then engaged on organising work in Clare and Limerick, gave
an interview to the Press, of which the following is a summary:Ennis, Monday.-Interviewed at Old Ground Hotel, Ennis,
to-day, 'With reference to the statement issued by the Armagh
Provincia1 Council of the Catholic Clerical Managers, in c o n - ,. ~.'-.
nection with the dismissal of a teacher, Mrs. E. Keenan, from
c,
Killean (County Armagh) Public Elementary School, Dr. T.
J. O'Connell, General Secretary of the Irish National Teachers'
Organisation, said he was glad that Canon McNally's statement:'
had been published. It served one very useful purpose. It
should for ever put an end to the whisperings and the l"UIUOurS
that had been prevalent since the Congress, to the effect that
there must be " something more behind this dismissal than
what appeared on the surface; or what the teachers were willing
to disclose ".
These whisperings, he said, had gone on despite the statement made by Very Rev. Dean MacDonald, which was quoted
at Congress and repeated since to the effect that there were no
charges of any kind alleged against Mrs. Keenan. He hoped
the suggestions and rumours had now been finally disposed of.
In d~aling with these statements at Ennis, Dr. 0 'Connell
stated he was at a disadvantage inasmuch as he had not
access to all the documents and correspondence available in his
office. There was, however, one very essential feature in the case,
which Canon McNally did not refer to in the course of his
long statement, and which was the keystone of the whole
situation. He wondered whether the Armagh Provincial
Ma;nagers, before they passed the resolution vindicating the
manager, had adverted to the fact that on May 1, 1934, six
months after Mrs. Keenan had taken up duty as Princfpll-I of
the s<lhool, the Manager had entered into a formal contract 'with
her, of which the following extract forms an essential part:" The Manager agrees to employ ~he teacher as the principal
teacher of the Killean Girls' School from the 1st day of
December, 1933, henceforth until the expiration of three
calendar months from the date at which notice in writing shall
have been given from either side to the other to determine the
said employment."
The document, said Dr. 0 'Connell, containing that binding
a6
37
clause was signed on May 1, 1934, by Canon McNally an:d by
Mrs. Keenan, in the presence of witnesses. It was duly registered at the Ministry of Education on May 2, 1934, and it
settled finally and definitely the contractual relations which
thenceforth existed between the Manager and the teacher. It
will be noted that according to Vhis docmnent, Mrs. Keenan
was appointed Principal, not temporary Principal, of Killean
School. The Manager has now admitted in his statement that
despite the specific terms of this contract, and contrary to them,
he proposed on two separate occasions, i.e., in October, 1938,
and December, 1938, to remove Mrs. Keenan from the
principalship without giving iller this three months' notice in
writing which he 'had bound himself to give her, and to which
she was clearly entitled under the terms of her contract. This
form of contract is exactly in the same terms as that signed by
practically every Catholic primary teacher in Ireland. That
was why he (Dr. O'Connell) had said at Cong'ress, and he
repeated now, that in so far as her relations with her iVlanager
were concerned, Mrs. Keenan had every reason to regard her.
self as securely fixed in her position as any teacher t'hen listening to him.
The head and fount of Mrs. Keenan's offence, and of that
of her Organisation, was that she and t'hey insisted on the ful, fihnent of the terms of her signed contract. Every Manager
who appointed a teacher and signed the usual contract or
agreement provided by the regulations, had the legal right to
dismiss the teacher by giving 'him a three months' notice in
writing, but in order to obviate the harsh or arbitrary exercise
of a Manager's legal rights, an agreement 01' understanding was
entered into over forty years ago between the Catholic Hierarchy and the Teachers' Organisation, whereby it was laid
down that before a teacher could be dismissed or served with
notice of dismissal by a Manager, permission to dismiss or to
serve such notice should be sought and obtained from tlia
Bishop of the Diocese, who. before giving permission, would
hear the teacher in his own defence.
Canon MeN ally now tries to make some nice distinction between what he calls " an arrangement" which involved the
, removal of Mrs. Keenan from her position as Principal and 'her
dismissal. He says that in October, 1938. he was prepared to
make three changes in the staffing of Killean School. These
"hanges admittedly involved the rem", al of Mrs. Keenan from
the post to whi0h she had been formally appointed. He states
that before malring them he consulted t'he Cardinal, and that
his Eminence approved of his arrangements and appointments,
which he says did not involve any question of dismissal. He
(Dr. O'Connell) couldn't see this nice distinction which was
here sought to be made between removal and dismissal. Canon
38
U\:IcNally says that no one thought of dismissal for two months
afterwards when " the General Secretary forced the case to
Armagh ". By that phrase Ca:non McNally had UIlJWittingly
given away his case. Why should it have been made necessa,ry
for the General Secretary to force the case to Armagh' Had
not the teacher the undisputed rig>ht to go to Armagh and to
be heard by her Bishop before the question of her future
position was decided 1
With regard to Mrs. Keenan'8 alleged agreement, said Dr.
o 'Connell, to the proposed arrangements, in the fuost instance
that aspect of the case was dealt with in the statement placed
,before Congress. "All I wish to say," said Dr. O'Con.nell,
" is that on the first occasion on which Mrs. Keenan visited
me, she informed me that she did not wish to fall in with the
Manager's proposals; and, on inquiring as to her position,
I informed her that, in accordance with the terms of her agreement, she could not be removed from the principalship except
hy a formal three months' notice in writing, served in accordance with the terms of the Maynooth Resolution. Canon
McNally stated that my suggestion that the temporary condition proposed by the Ministry would be regarded as having
la,psed after a period of five years has no foundation in theory
or -practice. I am in a position to quote from 'an official document* to show that this is in fact the practice of the Ministry,
and there was the positive assurance of the Ministry that, so
far as they were concerned, they were quite willing to have
Mrs. Keenan continued as Principal of the s<lhool."
There were many other points in the statement which, Dr.
o 'Connell said, he -could only deal with when he had an opportunity of consulting the files; but there was one statement
made by the Manager, which came to him as a ,great surprise.
It was even more surprising still that the Armagh Provincial
Managers could have apparently allowed the statement to go
without comment. Canon McNally had pointed out that under
the reguiations of the N Ol1;hern Ministry, it was competent for
the teacher to appeal to the Ministry, and the suggestion clearly
was that, having been dissatisfied, as he said, with the decision
of the Ecclesiastical Court, it had been then open to her to go
for justice to the Ministry, and that she had not done so,
because of some doubt as to the result.
"On behalf of the Catholic teachers of Ireland, that suggestion is vehemently resented," declared Dr. 0 'Connell.
"Ca,non McNally should know, and most assuredly the
Armagh Provincial Managers should know, why Mrs. Keenan
or the IN.T.O. did not appeal over the heads of the Ecclesiastical authorities to the Northern Ministry.
Their one and
only reason for refusing to do so was their loyalty to the
• See page 51.
39
agreement that had been made over forty years ago with the
Catholic Bishops. By that agreement they bound themselves
to recognise the Ecclesiastical auuhorities as the final authority
on all questions involving the tenure of teachers, and not to
appeal from that authority to any lay tribunal whatsoever.
That, and that only, was their reason for not availing of the
provision of the section which is quoted at length by Canon
McNally.
" The way the teachers and, I believe, the public will look
at this case is that a teacher who had given long, faithful and
effiilient service and against ""hose character no charge had
been or could be made, has been deprived of her position so
that another might be put into her place, and is MW left without the means of earning her livelihood."
...~.
The Press interview was followed up by a letter from the
General Secretary, written from Ennis, which appeared in the
daily papers on June 1st, 1939. This letter was as follows:" Old Ground Hotel,
Ennis.
May 30th, 1939.
To the Editor.
Dear Sir,
I hope you will allow me to supplement the remarks which I made
yesterday to yonr correspondent in the courV of an interview £ollowing
a hurried glance through the lengthy statement which Canon McNally
submitted to the !,Armagh Provincial Managers, relative to the Newry
dismissal case. I have since had the opportunity to study that document
more carefully, and to note its many inconsistencies and misleading
statements.
The official letters quoted by Canon McNally make it plain that Mrs.
•
Keenan's occupancy of the principalship of Killean School, and her continuance therein, depended on two circumstances viz., on her
recognition in that position by the Ministry, and on the consent of her
Manager (who, alone, had the power to dismiss her) to her continuance.
It is an established fact that from the date of her appointment, until
the question of her removal from the principalship was raised by Canon
McNally, the Ministry had never once questioned her continuance, and
that they were quite prepared to continue her in that position. When
Canon MeN ally informed them that he was about to remove Mrs.
Keenan and to replace her by another teacher, the Ministry had no
option but to agree to his proposal.
Canon McNally, however, seeks to put the responsibility tor her
discontinuance on the Mimstry. He states that the period of Mrs.
Keenan's appointment was to be ended when the Ministry gave its
decision with regard to the need for separate schools. There is no
statement to that effect in either of the official letters which he quotes .
It is absolutely contrary to the terms of the formal contract which
he, himself, signed on May 1st, 1934, wherein it was provided that
Mrs. Keenan was to be continued as principal o£ the school until the
expiration of a three months' notice in writing, to be served on her
by her Manager. He goes on to say that the Ministry decided that the
two separate schools should continue, and that by this decision Mrs.
Keenan's appointment and office came to an end. There is no foundation for that assertion. The Ministry was moved to make :that decision
1····
40
by Canon MeN ally's proposal to 'make changes '-we have his own
word for that. It was he, and not they, who raised the issue, after
a lapse of five years; hut he must know that the faot that such a
deoision was made would have no effect towards the removal of Mrs.
Keenan from the principalship, and that her removal was. not neces~ary
to take the schools from under the shadow of amalgamation. The .TIght
of removal lay with the Manager, and with the Manager alone, a~d he
must accept the whole r.esponsibility for the use he has made of It.
Canon MoNally completely misrepresents my attitude in regard to
Mrs. Keenan's tenure o£ office. He says 'he (Mr. O'Connell) tries
to prove that she was .temporary principal until amalgamatio.n. w0u.!-d
take place, and therefore, could not be removed from that posItIon till
amalgamation ~ctually took place.' Further on h~ writes: 'Surely
this decision (Le., the decision of the Ministry, mentIoned above) B;hows
that Mr. O'ConnelPs contention that Mrs. Keenan' was appomted
temporary principal till amalgamation should be actually carried out
is a contention unworthy of the General Secretary'; and, again, he
writes: 'With heroic courage, the S'ecretary proceeded to finish his
self-imposed task of undertaking to compel the Manager to keep Mrs.
Keenan in her temporary position till amalgamation would actually
take place.' I have never contended, or tried to prove what is here
suggested took place, nor did I try to compel the Manager to continue
her until, and, apparently, only until, amalgamation actually took
place. Such a course would have been particularly foolish. What I did
contend, and what I tried (successfully, I hope) to prove was that
Mrs. Keenan's tenure of office as Principal of Killean School could be
terminated only by a three months' notice from her Manager, properly
served. on her in accordance with the terms o{ the Maynooth Resolution,
and that 'it did not, as he suggests, come automatically to an end
immediately he had obtained the sanction of the Ministry for certain
proposed changes in the ~ng of the school.
Canon McNalIy stresseWat length Mrs. Keenan's alleged willingness,
when these proposals were first made to her, to step down from the
position which she had successfully filled for five. years, to surrender the
substantial privileges and emoluments which she had enjoyed in that
post, to accept a subordinate position in the school, and to see her place
as principal being taken by one of the assistants. I have no personal
knowledge of all this j but if that were her attitude I am wondering
why she should have travelled specially to Dublin _to lay her case before
her Organisation and to seek their advice and assistance. If Mrs.
Keenan were so complaisant as the Manager would have us believe, and
was so readily prepared to surrender her rights and pri-vileges as is
now suggested, there' was no reason why she should have carried her
oomplaint to the LN.T.O., or sought their help.
When she did come to the LN.T.O., the Secretary did not, as alleged
by Canon McNally, undertake 'graciously' or otherwise to relieve
her of all future anxiety, nor did he tell her, or suggest, that she was
not any longer to heed tna sayings or doings of the ManaO'er. He has
more regard for the office which he holds, for the conaide~tion due to
a clergyman, and for the maintenance of the good relations between
managers and teachers than to suggest any such thing. When she
inquired as to what her position was, and what her rights were she was
to~d, and p-roperly told, that she could be removed from the principalShIp only by a three months' notice in writing, served by the Manager
in acc?rdance with the terms of the Maynooth Statutes.
Whl~e .the Manager me~ely endeavours to convey the impr.ession that
thE} ~Imst~y was responsIble for the. removal of the teacher from the
prlllClp~shIP, he wo~d have u~ defimtely to believe that her dismissal
from Kdlean School 18 d~e entIrely to the interference of the LN. T.O.
He has told us that he Informed the teacher in October that he was
',:::~
<1
.,
.;Ja
.~~
,~
41
about to remove her frOlu the principalship. He tells us, a.lso, that
before doing' so he had taken the precaution to secure the approval of
the Cardinal and the Ministry. He admits that on December 16th he
met the teachers again and 'confirmed their new appointments '-in
other words, he reaffirmed his decision to remove Mrs. Keenan from the
principalship without complying with the conditions of his signe.a
contract. He says that he I aslred J them would they take up then
new positions on January 2nd, 1939. The 'phone message received
at I.N.T.O. Head Office on the evening oe December 16th, from Mrs.
Keenan, was to the effect that she was ordered by her Manager to take
up duty in the subordinate position on January 2nd. The fact that
she was so ordered ",'as stated in my letter to the Manager, of December
19th, and was neither questioned nor otherwise referred to in his reply
on December 22nd.
The Manager says ( up to this time the question of wdismissal did not
arise.' The ~Ianager would have us believe that his order to the
teacher to surrender the poSition which she held, and to accept a subM
ordinate position in the scJ;1001 was .something different from dis?Iiss~I.
'The I.N.T.O. forced the Issue,' he says. May I respectfully mqUIre
what issue? The letter addressed by the I.N.T.O. to Canon McNally
on the 19th December is on record. In that letter, it was pointed out
to him that the termination of Mrs. Keellall's services by verbal notice,
and befoxe she had appeared before her Bishop to show why notice in
writing should not be served on her, was contrary to the provisions of
the Maynooth Statutes. It went further and expressed the hope that
Mrs. Keenan would be continued in her position as principal of· the
school, seeing that there was nothing alleged against her on the score
of efficiency or conduct.
What was the Manager's reaction to that? He stated that he had
already comp1ied with the Maynooth Statutes, though the teacher had
never, up to that time, been summoned to appear before her Bishop.
He repeated in his letter the threat (I can eaU it nothing else) which
he had already conveyed verbally to the teacher, viz., that if, as
he himself has phrased it, the case were' forced to Armagh,' and if she
failed there to make good her defence he would serve her with a three
months' notice, and ·she would be without any position of employment
in Killean School.
The Manager was thus prejudging the issue that was to be decided
in Armagh, and holding a threat over the teacher's head as to the result
of her appeal. The decision as to what the outcome of that appeal
would be should have been a matter for the Cardinal, and not for the
~Ianager.
Let me say here that the teacher went to '.Armagh completely io-norant
of the case she had to answer. When she and I explained our difficul~
ties in .that regard, we were told hy Dean MacDonald, who was deputed
to hear and decide the case, that there were no charges against her.
Though Canon IVfcNally was present at Ara CoeH that day while the
inquiry-such as it was-was in progress, he was not called before the
court,
asked' to state his reasons for removing the teacher, so that
these mIght be met and answered. r may say here that a prominent
clergyman, and Manager, with whom the case was afterwards discussed
gave it as his considered opinion that the teacher should have refused
to go to Armagh until the specifio charges which she was expected
~o ~eet .had bee1;1 forwarded. to her, and that she would be quite
JustIfied In adoptmg that attitude. I am prepared if necessary to
furni~h the Secretary of the Armagh Provincial Coun~i1 with the n~me
of thIS clergyman.
Dean MacDonald's decision, as conveyed to Canon McNally and to the
teacher, was to the effect that nothing had been said on behalf of the
teacher to prevent the Manager from giving her ':the usual three
or
•
42
months' notice of dismissal' from her ppsition as c temporary Principal
of Killean School.' It will be noted that the Rev. Dean, unlike Canon
McNally, regarded the removal of the teacher from her position as
'temporary principal' of the school as a dismissal requiring a three
months' notice, and that her position on that date was not, as is more
than once urged in the Manager's statement a' past ~osition J which
was automatically terminated when the Ministry, some tI.~e in Octobe::
had decided that the two separate schools would contmue. It will
be further noted that :the decision is expressed in negative terms. It
does not attempt to say positively that Mrs. Keenan should be
dismissed, or that she deserved to be dismissed. Furthermore, the
negative permission contained in the decision was limited to her
removal from the principalship. Canon ·McNally went further than..
this. The notice of dismissal ser~d on her next day was to the effect
that her employment as teacher in any capacity in Killean School
would cease as from March 28th, 1939. After a service .of thirteen
years in that school, under Canon McNally's management-eight as
assistant and five as principal-she is now thrown on the roadside.
Neither the Northern Ministry, who were satisfied :to leave her
undisturbed, nor the I.N.T.O., who merely intervened, as they were
bound to do, to see, ill so far as they could, that the rights assured to
her by her signed contract, and by the long established agreement
with the Hierarchy, -werE' accorded to her, can be saddled, with
responsibility for her present plight. Not the slightest shadow of a
charge has been sustained against her on the score of conduct or
efficiency. There is nothing in all of Canon McNally's statement which
would alter the opinion expressed in" the Congress resolution to the
effect that his action in depriving the teacher of her livelihood was
harsh, unwarranted and arbii{rary. In his concluding paragraph,
Canon McN ally refers to the ract that he had forty applications frO-ID
teachers for the .assistantship which was rendered vacant by the appointment of Miss O'Neill;to Mrs. Keenan's post. Knowing the number of
unemployed teachers in the area, I am not surprised; but there is no
evidence that anyone of these forty was aware, before she sent in her
application, of the circumstances which gave rise to the vaoancy. I do
know, definitely, that certain teachers who were acquainted with these
circumstances refused to apply. It may interest Canon McNally, also,
to know that the lady who now occupies the position informed me by
letter that she had been offered, and had accepted the appointment
before the notice to \vhich he refers had appeared in the Press.
In view of the possibility that it may arise in another -way, I do
not wish at this stage to go into the question of the manner in which
the Maynooth Resolution was applied and operated in this case. The
Executive representing one party to the long standing arrangement
embodied in ,the resolution have alr.eady .~tated their views on this
aspect of .the matter. I will only say here that if the Armagh Managers
are satisfied that it has been complied 'With in this instance in the
spirit in which it had hitherto been so scrupulously observed, then the
Catholic teachers of the Archdiocese have some cause for uneasiness.
Finally, I would draw attention to the terms of the Council's first
resolution, wherein they accept Canon McNally's statement as a vindication of his action 'in the Killean School appointments.' The issue
between Canon MoNally and the LN;T.O. was not one of appointments, but rather of the dismissal o£ a competent teacher, without cause
~
assigned.
Yours faithfully,
T. d. O'CONNELL."
,j
":~
j
'~:':
MEETING AT LIMERICK
•
,
Some days later, in an address delivered at a meeting in
Limerick, the General Secretary again dealt with the Keenan
Dismissal. The following summary of his remarks was published at the time:
Winding up a ten days' organising tour in Limerick and
Clal'e, during which he spoke at a series of crowded and interested meetings, Dr. T. J. 0 'Connell, General Secretary,
addressed a well-attended meeting at t·he )lechanics' Institute,
Limerick.
Mr. Sean Walsh presided.
In, his address ~Ir. O'Connell said that he ",as more than
pleased with the healthy condition of the I.N.T.O. in these two
counties; he cong'ratulated the members on the hiterest they
had shown in the work of the Org·anisation. and their loyalty
to its ideals.
Referring to the Killean dismissal case, Dr. 0 'Connell said
that to him personally it caused the g'reatest regret and disappointment that such an incident should occur. Duriug the
twenty-three years he had held the office of General Secretary
he had at every opportunity endeavoured to cultivate and
foster cordial relations between Managers and teachers, and
he was glad to say that until this unfortunate incident occurred
there was the greatest possible harmony and co-operation, individually and collectively, between the parties.
In his travels abIoad he was often questioned as to the working of the Managerial System, a system peculiar to this
country, and the query most frequently put to him was whether
it was possible for teachers to have security of tenure lmder
such a system.
He was always glad to be able to say t,hat during his long
period of office there had never been a case of arb1trary dismissal of a teacher by a Catholic Manager. He had fondly
hoped that during his time as Secretary he would never be
called on to defend a teacher 'ltg'ainst such action. That was
why he felt such disappointment over the KilIean case.
Much had been said and written as to the circumstances surrounding Mrs. Keenan's appointment to the Principalship of
Killean School in 1933. He was satisfied from all the available
~yidence, and from the inferences naturally to be dratVll from
*a
'
1
the evidence, that Mrs, Keenan at the time of that appointment
believed that unless and until the Ministry were to raise some
question as to her status, which was most unlikely, she was
perfectly secure in the position to which the Manager had
appointed her. It was not likely otherwise she would have
surrendered a permanent post with no guarantee tltat she could
ever 'again resume that post. The Manager was not in a position
to give her any such guarantee, because her resumption in the
future depended on the average which at that time was below
the figure which could warrant the appointment of an assistant.
Nor was it likely that if the Manager intended Mrs. Keenan's
promotion to be merely temporary he would have then, as he
did, made an arrangement whicn involved a reduction of the
status of the sllhool in the matter of staffing. Owing to the
average he had perforce to replace Mrs. Keenan, a fully qualified ·assistant, by a junior assistant mistress. If he intended
Mrs. Keenan's tenure of office to be a mere temporary affair
would he have thus jeopardised her permanent position in the
school, or would she have agreed to take that risk 1 He could
have allowed Mrs. Keenan to eontinue as full ·assistant and
have brought in an outside teacher to fill the temporary post,
or he could have continued the locum tenens who had occupied
the Principalship for three months prior to December, 1933,
and who had all the necessary qualifications for that appointment. There was no other conclusion to be drawn from the
known facts except that in 1933 the Manager was not only
willing but anxious that Mrs. Keenan's appointment to the
Principalship should be regarded as permanent. It was the
Ministry and not the Manager who laid down the conditions
on whieh she was to be recognised, and it was reasonable to
suppose and to expect that unless the. Ministry afterwards
raised some difficulties or made some objection Mrs. Keenan
wOl,ld be continued iu her post.
He was not, however, specially concerned with what happened in 1933 beyond the fact that Mrs. Keenan was promoted
to the Principalshi,p of the school. For his case the circumstances surrounding her appointment was not the real or
essential issue, because as far as a M·anager's legal right to
dismiss a teacher is concerned it does not matter whether the
appointment was "temporary" or "permanent ". Every
Manager in Ireland' has the legal right to dismiss any
teacher in his employment, because the only legal 'contract
that exists between Manager and teacher provides for a three
months' notice on each side. A legal right was one thing; the
manner in which that right 'was exercised was quite another
thing, and the question he and his Orgamsation had to consider
was whether the dismissal of the particular teacher was neces&.ry or warranted, or 1"hether she had done anything which
45
would call for such a drastic penalty as had been meted out
to her.
It was common ground that during her thirteen years' service
under Canon McNally's managership she had given every satisfaction; that during the five years she ooted as Principal of
the school she had shown that she was a successful teacher;
that there was no complaint as to her conduct or character as
a citizen and a member of the co=unity in which she lived.
Why, then, should it be necessary to remove her from the
position which she had thus satisfaJCtorily filled for five years?
Unless some good ,purpose were to be served, and could be
served only by her dismissal, then that dismissal was unwarranted, and her fellow-members were justified in describing
that dismissal as a harsh and arbitrary exercise of managerial
authority.
The Manager had stated that he was anxious to get the school
from under the shadow {If amalg.amation. The Ministry had
not raised the question of amalgamation since 1933, and it was
extremely unlikely that even the shadow of amalgamation was
then, in 1938, hanging over Killean School; or, if it were, that
the danger spot was the girls' school. But if the Manager were
so anxious to get the school from under this supposed shadow,
and if that were his only reason for the change in the staffing
of the school, could he not have accomplished his purpose without removing Mrs. Keenan from the position she had successfully filled for five years, and without making any change in
the staff as it existed in December last' There' was no need
to deprive Mrs. Keenan of the privileges and emoluments which
she had hitherto enjoyed, and to subject ~er to the humiliation
of having to step down to a subordinate position after that
lapse of time as Principlll. All that was necessary was to
request the Ministry to remove the proviso which they had
attached to the appointment in 1933. On his awn showing,
t,he Ministry wonld have readily agreed to the propos&!, arid
all the trouble which has since arisen would have heen avoidcid.
Dealing with the question of the Maynooth Resolution, Dr.
o 'Connell said he would prefer at this stage not to go into
that at any length. He would, however, direct attention to the
Manager's contention in his letter to the I.N. T.O. on 22nd
December, ·a contention repeated in his recent published state.
u. .t, to the effect that he had already complied with the provisions of the Maynooth Statutes before he was requested to
do so by the I.N:T.O. If he had really done so, then that
should have been an end to it; there should have been no need
at all for what happened afterwards-for the notification
of an appointment with the Cardinal; for the teacher's visit
to Armagh on December 27th; for the formal decision by Dean
46
MacDonald; for the formal service of a three months' notice
by the Manager on December 28th, following that' decision.
The value to be placed on' the l'4anager's other statements
can be judged by his insistence that prior to December 16th
he had fulfilled his obligations under the Maynooth Statutes.
It 'Was the duty of the Organisation to stand by the victim.
ised teacher, and that they were prepared to do at all costs.
..
•
•
•
•
•
FURTHER COMMENTS ON MANAGER'S STATEMENf
The Manager's statement-apart from its questionable references to the I.N.T.O., and to the General Secretary-was
meant to show that Mrs. Keenan's appointment as Prineipal
of fue KilJean School was of a temporary nature and that as
such he was entitled to remove her from that position at any
time without reference to any agreement and without formal
written notiee.
The published correspondence and all the
surrounding circumstances make it abundantly clear that the
temporary proviso which accompanied her appointment was
inserted at the express order of the Ministry and was not dne
in allY way to the Manager's wish or action. In his speech at
Limerick, already quoted, the General Secretary set forth conclusive arguments to show that this was the only possible
inference to be drawn from the events surrounding the
appointment. But there is in addition the· Manager's own
letter to the Ministry, dated November 14th, 1933, and quoted
by him in his statement wherein he wrote" I am in receipt
of your letter of the 11th instant, amd ~\n, view of what it conveys,
I have appointed Mrs. E. Ke..enan (Assistant) to be temporary principal." It is significant that the Ministry's letter .
of the 11th November to which the Manager replied in these
terms is not -quoted, but it is not difficult to surmise the nature
of its contents and to infer that it was because of what it
eonveyed the Manager was constrained to make the appointment a temporary one.
If further proof of this is wanted it will be found in an
extract from an official letter addressed to Mr. John Beattie
M.P. (Northern Divisional Secretary of the I.N.T.O.), by th~
Ministry of Education, under date 27th September, 1939. The
extract is as follows:
" Tyrone House,
Ormeau Avenue,
Belfast.
27th September, 1941.
Dear Mr. Beattie,
I am sorry I have been unwble to reply earlier to the
questions you asked regarding appointments .9f temporary
teachers. You will appreciate, however, that to examine
the files dealing with appointments of teachers during the
five years e,;ded 30th June, 1939, has involved no small
amount of work.
47
48
The result of this examination is now available and it
reveals that during the period. mentioned there were 24
teachers (18 principal teachers and 6 a.ssistants) appointed
in a temporary .capacity where this special condition was
imposed hy the Ministry pending the OII'nSideration of the
question of school r@OII"ganisation.
(The many ca.sea of
appointments under the usual proviso are not regarded as
temporary appointments and have therefore been ignolY'd.)
In none of these cases, however, have we been able to find
anything that would indicate that the Manager of the
school wished to make the appointment temporary in character. In all of them it was the Ministry which reqnired
the appointment to be temporary."
Mrs. Keenan herself asserts positively that until October,
1938, nothing was ever said to her by her Manager which
would lead her to think or believe that she would be removed 0from the principalship so long as the Ministry were prepared
to agree to her continuance in that position, and her statement
to this effect has not been challenged.
As the General Secretary stated in his Congress address, she
had every reason to regard herself as permanently fixed in her
position as any teacher in the service, subject only to the possibility that the Ministry held themselves free in certain
eventualities not to accord to her the privileges in regard to
capitation to which she would become entitled had the proviso
in question not accompanied her appointment.* There is no
such thing as absolute permanence in a teacher's term of employment. Every teacher in the service, is, legally, subject to
removal on three months' notice by virtue of the Agreement
which is signed with the Manager. Mrs. Keenan had signed
this Agreement, and prOVISO or no proviso, her services could
be dispensed with by the service of a formal three months'
notice. If, however, that were done without a good and sufficient cause, her removal could not be regarded otherwise than
as a harsh and arbitrary exercise of a legal right. The insertion
of this proviso by the Ministry did not, and could not, absolve
the Manager from the contract into which he had formally
entered when he signed the Agreement of May, 19::13. The
Manager seems to assume that all that was necessary for hjm:-....· . '1
to show in justification of his action was that Mrs. Keenan's
;
san·ction as Principal of the school was of a temporary character
and that once this was clearly est",blished nothing further need
be said in defence of his action in removing her from that
position, even without complying with the terms of his legal
contract.
.
* See Ministry's letter to Mrs. Keenan, 18th December, 1933, page 26.
49
That is a point of view with which the Organisation cannot
agree. Mrs. Keenan had filled this position for almost five
years. During that time she had satisfied the secular and
ecclesiastical authorities, and no complaint of any kind had
been made regarding her work. To all outward appearances
she was the regularly appointed and fully established Principal
of Killean Girls' School. Her pupils, their parents, the
teachers in the district, and the public generally, saw her promoted from the position of assistant to that of principal of the
school. They saw her occupy that position creditably and
honourably for close on five years.
What conclusion could
they draw had they seen her removed from that position and
a suhordinate teacher from the school next door placed over
her head as principal! Could they think otherwise than that
she was in some way unfitted to be principal of the school, or
that she had done something to deserve such a humiliation!'
This is an aspect of the matter which does not seem to have
occurred to the Rev. Manager when he decided to remove Mrs.
Keenan from the position which she had satisfactorily filled
for five years, and to appoint a junior teacher from the school
next door in her place. Neither then nor since has the Manager
ever vouchsafed any reason other than the alleged temporary
nature of her appointment to justify the reduction of her
status in the school. The Organisation hold the view that the
proviso which accompanied her appointment was not sufficient
justification for her removal from the principalship, seeing
that, in addition to a substantial reduction in emolmnents, such
removal would subject her to unneceljllary and undeserved
humiliation in the eyes of her neighbours and the parents of
her pupils, and that even if the Manager's action were confined to dismissing her from the principalship, that action in
the circumstances would be, in the words of the Congress resolution, "a harsh, unwarranted and arbitrary exercise of
managerial authority". There was nothing connected with,
01' arising out of, the case that made it nec~ssary for him t(}
remove Mrs. Keenan from the principalship. If, as alleged,
he was " anxious to get the Killean Schools from lmder the
shadow of amalgamation ", his object could be accomplished
without disturbing Mrs. Keenan from her position.
But a worse fate-worse than the mere loss of the principalship-was in store for Mrs. Keenan. After her recovery from
the first shocl, caused by the "conversation" which the
Manager had with bel' in October, 1938, she consulted" some
friends", and naturally the first friend a teacher turns to
when in trouble is bel' Organisation. The Organisation advised
Mrs. Keenan that she was entitled to a three months' notice
from the Manager before she could be removed from the
principalship of the school, and that as her school was situated
50
in the Archdiocese of Armagh, the Manager would require the
formal permission of His Eminence the Cardinal bef<lre such
notice could be served. It is not now disputed that these two
conditions were a necessary preliminary to her removal. But
because the teacher, through her Organisation, insisted that
they should be carried out, she was not alone removed from the
principalship as was first intended, but she was dismissed from
the school and deprived of her means of livelihood. When the
teacher originally reminded the Manager of her legal agreement and of her claim to appear before her' Bishop, the
Manager had warned her that if she went to the Cardinal she
would forfeit her chance of the assistantship. He repeated
that threat in his letter to the .General Secretary on December
22nd, 1938. These fads we're mentioned in the General
Secretary's letter to His Eminence, and they were not then,
or since, challenged. In his statement to the Armagh Provincial
Council, the Manager asserted that IT[:j to a certain stage
" there _s no question of dismissal, but the question of Mrs.
Keenan returning to her former position, which was still open
to her in the school. The I.N.T.O. closed the dwr against this."
Finally we have it in the later correspondence from Father
Donnelly, Secretary to his Eminence (see letter of August 16th.
1939, page 63), that " the fans et origo of all the worry and
scandal of the case was due to the fact th8ct the I.N.T.O.
advised Mrs. Keenan that she was entitled to a three months'
dismissal notice served in accordance with the provisions of
the' Maynooth Resolution'. " Summed up, therefore, the case
presents itself as follows:
,
(1) Mrs. Keenan was to be removed from the principalship
because of the alleged nature of her appointment five
years previously.
(2) Because her Organisation objected to this, and insisted
that in any case it could be done only when certain preliminary conditions were fulfilled, she was denied even
the right of having her former ,position restored to her
and was deprived completely of her means of livelihood.
The protest made by the delegates at the Belfast Congress
when they declared that the dismissal of this teacher was " a
harsh, unwarranted and arbitrary exercise of Managerial
authority" can not in the circumstances be regarded as being
otherwise than a pal "cularly mild and moderate one.
Was thIB Dismissal .Autkoil-ised?
The Manager, in the cqurse of his letter to the Armagh
Council, stated that " the Manager was duly notified by the
Court, (Le., the Ecclesiastical Court) that he 'could justly give
j
.
ffi.l
''''l
51
the teacher a three months' notice of dismissal." How far this
statement is correct ean be judged by a reference to the text
of Dean McDonald's letter on page 25, in which the decision
of the Court was formally conveyed.
"THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE NORTHERN MINISTRY"
The General Secretary had informed Congress that it was
the practice of the Northern Ministry to regard the temporary
or provisional nature of an appointment as having lapsed after
the position had been temporarily oceupied for five year~ In
the course of his letter to the Armagh Provincial Council the
Manager asserted that the General Secretary's statement had
no foundation in the theory or practice of the Northern
Ministry of Education.
In order to confirm the General Secretary's later contention
that there was documentary evidence to prove that this is
the case it becomes necessary to quote an extract from the
Minutes of a Meeting of the Standing Conference for Elementary Edueation (Northern Ireland) held on November 4th,
1938. This Standing Conference is composed of representatives
of the Ministry and of the teachers. Its meetings are held at
regular intervals and various questions arising out of the
administration of the system are discussed. At this paliicular
meeting on November 4th, 1938, the late Mr. A. N. Bonaparte
Wyse, the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry. presided. The
following is the relevant extract taken from the copy of the
minutes circulated to the members of the Conference-among
whom were members of the I.N.T.O. ;"AMALGAMATION OF' SCHOOLS. RULES AND
PRACTICE OF THE M'lNISTRY IN REGARD TO THE
RETENTION OF'TEACHERS.
A teacher's rcpreselltath'c said that this matter had
frequently been discussed before, but the teachers considered the situation still unsatisfactory. He wished to
refer to three classes of cases;(1) .................................. ' ................. ..
,
(2) Teachers provisionally recog'llised prior to and in
anticipation of the amalgamation. He thought that the
period of five years during which a proviso was operative
was too long and shQuld be reduced to two years.
(3) ................................. , .................. ..
,,
A general discussion followed, in the course of which
the 'Chairman (Mr. Wyse), expressed a doubt whether in
1
/
52
actual practice any teacher whose appointment had not
. been subject to the proviso had lost employment as a result
of amalgamation. He explained the reason for the imposition of the proviso and that it was removed if the ~mallll1r
mation did not take ptace withiln five ye(Jll's."
It is significant that the first move to deprive. Mrs. Keenan
of the principalship was made some two months prior to the
expiry of the five year period, at the conclusion of which she
would be entitled to claim that the proviso was no longer
/
operative. .
THE CONGRESS DISCUSSION
The Executive have reason to believe that the aspect of this
case which appears to be most str-ongly resented by those who
seek to justify the dismissal of Mrs. Keenan was the Executive's
action in placing the facts of the case before the delegates
assembled at the Annual Congress of the Organisation. The
proceedings at the Congress have been described in responsible
quarters as " shameful ", " atrocious ", " impertinent ", and
" lIDCatholic ".
The Executive fail to tmderstand why the
publication. of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
removal of this teacher should have aroused such indignation
and resentment if it were felt that everything that had been
.done in that connection were such as to command public sympathy and approval. But as 'has been stated, the Executive in
placing the facts before the delegates were doing nothing more
than what was their bounden duty. The efforts made by them,
and by others, up to the very last moment to obviate the
necessity for such a course have already been described. The
Executive of the I.N.T.O. is an ,elected body. Every action
taken Iby the Executive in its official capacity is taken in the
name {)f those from whom its authority is derived in the first
instance, i.e., the niembers of the Organisation as a whole.
Every year on the occasion of the Annual Congress there is a
strict accounting by the Executive of their activities during
the previous twelve months. In view of the issues involved,
issues which ·concerned every Catholic teacher in this coU1!try,
this particular case was naturally and rightly regarded as the
most impol1ant matter which had come before the Executive
during the year in question.
It was common knowledge among the teachers that for some
time previously certain negotiations had been taking place,
and even had the Executive wished, it would not have heen
possible to leave the <ielegates unaware of the facts of the
situation. Had there been any reason to hope that the case
would be reopened, and the dismissal dedsion revised, the
:Bxecutive .'Quld have asked for a postponement {)f the dis.
53
·
cussion on the grounds that the case was still sub judice, and
that the chance of an amicable settlement was still open. But
there was no such hope, and the Executive would be false to
their trust if they did not place the facts as they knew them
before those to whom they were responsible and allow the
latter to express their opinion on the course that had been
taken. It may be worth noting here that 12 months later,
after the Manager's statement and Father Donnelly's letters~
had been published, the delegates assembled at the 1940
Congress in Killarney, by formal resolution and without any
suggestion from the Executive, unanimously expressed their
entire approval of the action which the Executive had taken
in connection with the case. It is likewise worthy of note that
not one- of the 200 Branches of the Organisation has at· any
time adversely criticised the action 01' attitude of the Executive
and that not even from one individual member has any such
criticism been forthcoming. Such remarkable nnanimity could
not be secured from a body whose traditional loyalty and
Catholic spirit have been so frequently and so eloquently commended, for any action that could properly be described as
" shameful", " atrocious", or " unCatholic". The present
Executive wish to put on record their firm conviction that
nothing was done by the Organisation or any member thereof
in connection with this case which would call for any expression of regret 01' apology and that if the same circumstances
were to occur again they see no course that would be open
to them to follow other than the one that had been followed
by the Executive at the time. As the General Secretary stated
in his address to Congress, it is the duty of the Organisation,
and its Executive, to protect and succour its members, and
to stand by them in their hour of need, and that duty will not
be shirked in any circumstances whatsoever.
APPLICATION OF THE MAYNOOTH RESOI.UTION TO THE
KII.LEAN CASE
It has been suggested that as the Maynooth Resolution had
its origin in an agreement between the Bishops and the
Organisation, there was, and is, an implied contract that when
a Bishop issues a decision in accordance with the terms Qf t}1Q
Resolution, the Organisation will accept it, and that tht
I.N.T.O. in this case by refusing to accept the decision of the
Bishop, i.e., His Eminence the Cardinal, placed themselves in
the wrong.
The inference from this, it is said, is that the
I.N:T.O. will accept the Bishop's decision only when it is in
their favour. It becomes necessary to deal here with these
suggestions.
.
•
S~e
correspom!eIlce with Father j)ollnelly, pages 63--87.
Let it be said at once that the Organisation :fully and un"
reservedly accepts the proposition that there is an implied
contrlwt contained in the Maynooth Resolution which binda
the Organisation_ to accept the decision of a Bishop when that
decision is issued in accordance with the terms of the
Reso~ution.
Furthermore, it is not true to say or to suggest
that the I.N.T.O. will acc~pt the Bishop's decision only when it
is favourable to the teacher. During the past 25 years cases
have occurred in whieh the Bishop's decision was llnfavourable
to the teacher, but the I.N.T.O. accepted these decisions because
they were satisfied that they were made and given strictly in
accordance with the terms of the Maynooth Resolution.
The~r
qontention was, and is, tlUll in this CJll~ n.either the trial
run' thle adiuWiootiom was im, a~o<rdalnOe- with the term.s of tit;)
liIe.solution, as 1~ruf1e1'l~tood by the toachlf,rs a.nd tlz;ei,' Organrwtion,
that neithflll' t'n the Letter n"'r thie sjYirit we,'e these teJrnzs .applied
to this oo.se, and that the dec~on by the Bishop did not a1,th01-ise
the Manage,' to remove Mrs. Ke'6nan f"01n [(,71ea.n School.
,
In the statement sent to the Cardinal after their meeting on
January 7th, 1939,* the Executive set forth at length their
reasons for questioning the procedure which had been adopted,
but the main points may be smnmarised here:-
(1) The Resolution specifically states that "the teacher
(sihall) be affordeit. the opp01'tnnity of. being hea"d in his own
defence" before being dismissed, or served with notice of dismissal In October, 1938. and more specifically in December,
1938, the Manager ordered Mrs. Keenan to vacate her position
as Principal of t,he school and to take up another and subordinate position. This order was of course an order of dismissal. This was done before any opportlmjty was afforded
her of being' heard in her own defence by her Bishop. When
tbe Manager was reminded of this by the I.N.T.O. Executive
he stated (vide his letter of December 22nd), that he " had
already complied with his obligations in virtue of the Maynooth
Synod ". Nevertheless, he, the Manager, not the Bishop, thereupon sllOlmoned the teacher to appear before the Bishop to
make her defence, fixing the plaee and ,hour at which she waa
to attend (vide letter of December 22nd), but without setting
forth any readons as to why she should be SO smnmoned and
without indicating in any way the nature of the charges, if
any, which she was expected to meet; . In his letter summoning'
the teacher to appear before the Court the Jl<Ianager. repeated
the threat which he had previously verbally made, setting forth
what his action would be in certain circumstances, thus fore,
- ",
• See page 18.
-
---
""
55
':iit<
':r
.~
"- '
stalling the decision of the Court and threatening to penalise
the teacher because she insisted on her right to appear before her
Bishop.
In previous instances of threatened dismissals the Bishop sai
as judge, the Manager set forth and sougbt to establish his
charges in the presence of the teacher and his representative,
who answered the charges so preferred. The Bishop, having
heard both sides, gave his decision. The procedure in this case
Though the Manager was present at
was totally different.
Armagh on the occasion of the teac:her's attendance there he
did not appear to state his reaSOns for the proposed removal of
the teacher nor was any \lTitten summary of them submitted
to the Court. His reasons, such as they \I'ere, were made known
to the teacher and her representatives through the medium of
the Press exactly one month after the dismissal had actually
taken place. The Right Rev. Dean Th'IacDonald, whom his
Eminence appointed to ,hear the teacher's defence, asserted
positively that there were no charges of any kind against her,
and ihat her proposed removal from the principalship was
entirely based on the nature of her appointment to that position.
Having <heard arguments as to why it should not be necessary
in these ·circumstances to deprive the teacher of a position
which she had satisfactorily filled for five years, and having
made brief notes of these, Dean lIfacDonald promised to place
the matter before the Cardinal who would carefully consider
all that had been said before a decision was made.
(2) The decisian to gitVe the Manage,' pe!"Inission to remove the
teache!' {"Ol1t the Pr""cipolship was l1lJruJ"e by the Bi.~hop bef01'e
the teache,' was hrea"d in her own defence.
This is shown:By the Manager's statement to the teacher to the
effect that he had informed His Eminence of the
proposed removal of Mrs. Keenan from the Principalship and that His Eminence had approved of
the " arrangements ", (See General Secretary's
letter to Cardinal MacRory, December 28th, 1938) ;
( b) By the Manager's assertion in his letter of December
22nd, that he had already complied with his obligations under the Maynooth Statute which could only
mean that he had received the necessary consent for
his proposed removal of Mrs. Keenan;
(c) By the Manager's statement in his letter to the
Armagh Council : "In October, 1938, I was prepared to make these changes. . ., Before making'
them, I consulted the Cardinal, as I was bound 'by
(a)
•
,'c',',
56
the laws of the Maynooth Synod. His Eminence
approved of my arrangements and appointments."
(d) By the statement made by the Cardinal to the
General Secretary on the occasion of the Ar~agh
interview, and befrn-e he 11LuJ, had ~ lYfJ'Portun~ty of
"teaming the natu1-e of the teoxmer's deferooe, to the
effect that as His Eminence had already heard the
whole facts of the case from the Manager he had
no option but to give the required permission to
serve a three months' notice, unless some agreement
were come"to-j31Hlh agreement being understood to
involve the relinquishment of the Principalship.
From all this, it is clear that the Bishop's decision was not,::'
made in accordance with the terms of the Maynooth Resolution, and there is nothing in the Resolution, expressed, or
implied, which places an obligation on the Organisation to::~
accept a decision except when it is so made.
Finally, as has already been shown, even had the Bishop's
decision been arrived at strictly in accordance with the terms
of the Maynooth Resolution, that decision as officially communicated to the Manager did not authorise him to deprive
her of the position in the school from which, 'on his own showing, he had temporarily taken her some five years previously.
THE TEACHER'S" CONSENT" TO THE PROPOSED
" ARRANGEMENTS"
Much 'capital has been made, in the Manager's statement and
elsewhere, of the fact, assuming it is a fact, that the teacher
when originally approached by the Manager in October, 1938,
gave her consent-qualified or otherwise-to the Manager's
proposed " arrangements" and that she then signified her
willingness to quit the principalship and accept the subordinate
position.
.
The circumstances in which this alleged consent was -given,
as described by the teacher, and confirmed by the Manager
himself, must be borne in mind when estimating the impor-tance to be attached to the teacher's attitude. The Manager
on this occasion paid one of his very rare visits to the school.
Without any previous notice or indication of his intention he
proposed to Mrs. Keenan that she should relinquish the principalship and accept the subordinate position of assistant. The
natural shock caused by such a proposal would not be such as
to conduce to a state of mind which would enable a person
less highly strlmg than Mrs. Keenan to weigh up on the
instant the significance of the Manager's proposal and its
•
57
'"
*
:...
effects on her future prospects and emoluments. It is at least
highly improbable that a proposed reduction in status and
remuneration would be so "cordially" accepted as the
Manager would have us believe. Why.her immediate and unconsidered reaction, even assuming that it was as stated by
the Manager, should be regarded, not alone as a factor, but
as a most important factor in the case made for her dismissal
is difficult of comprehension. It was not reasonable to expect
the teacher to make a deeision of that nature on the spur of
the moment, or, if made, to attempt to bind her to it if, after
mature consideration, she was satisfied that it was a decision
that should not have been made. On the Manager's own showing this is exactly what occurred.
When the proposed
" arrangement" was first mentioned" Mrs. Keenan cordially
agreed to resume her former position ", but" some days afterwards Mrs. Keenan <lalled on the Manager. She said she
would consult friends". Following these consultations and a
reconsideration of her position she informed the Manager of
her unwillingness to agree to his proposal and of her intention
to claim the rights conferred on her by her legal contract and
the Maynooth Resolution. The Organisation are prepared, for the sake of argument, to assume that the Manager's statement of what transpired when he first broached the subject
to Mrs. Keenan is substantially correct; but they cannot see
that this makes any material differ'ence in regard to the future
developments in the mise. ,If it is true that she signified her
agreement when the matter was suddenly broached to her, it
is equally true that when she came to consider the matter in
its full bearings she very soon altered her views. The Manager
charges that this ·change of mind was due to the advice and
influence of others, as if she were not entitled to seek such
advice as was open to her on a matter which so very seri,ously
affected her future position and welfare. Naturally," she consulted some friends" as the Manager states, and the fact that
she did so only goes to show that her agreement to the proposed " arrangements " was not quite as " cordial " as the
Manager expects us to believe. Naturally also she decided
to seek the advice of her Organisation. The advice which was
given to her by the Organisation has already been set out.
But the fact that she sought and acted on that advice is given
as the justification, and the only justification, for depriving
Mrs. Keenan of her means of livelihood. The Execl'''ve desires
that it should be quite clearly understood that if the urganisation had never been approached or consulted by this teacher,
and if the circumstances in which it was proposed to remove
her from her position as Principal of the School had come
otherwise to their knowledge, they would consic1,er it their
bounden duty to give her exactly the same advice, and, hl t.he
58
interests of the whole body of Catholic teachers, to do everything in their power to prevent the Manager removing her
froJ;ll her 'Position otherwise than inacCJordance with the terms
of his legal agreement, and of the Maynooth Resolution. Mrs.
Keenan's original consent, therefore, even if it were such as
is described by the Manager, is a negligible factor in the consideration of the case.
Principles affecting every Catholic
teacher in the country were at stake. These principles it was
the right and duty of the Organisation to protect and safeguard.
One further fact is worthy of mention. Mrs. Keenan did
not change· her mind as a result of the advice given to her
by the I.N.T.O. At the time she sought that advice she had
very definitely decided that she would not willingly accept
the Manager's proposal.
THE MANAGER'S CASE IN A NUTSHELL
'l1he Manager's case for the dismissal of Mrs. Keenan is
founded entirely on the assumption that her appoin1Jment· as
PHncipal of Killean School had actually lapsed at the tmuJ that
ht offered he.· the assistantship in Ocwbe>·, 1938. This is shown
in the following quotations:
" The Mini<ltry decided that the two separate schools shol\ld
continue. . .. By this decision Mrs. Keenan's appointment and
office as temporary teacher came to an end
(Manager's statement, page 31.)
" The I.N.T.O. had no right to interfere at 1he time they did
because' Mrs. Keenan had ceased to be a teacher '.
"But I spoke of Mrs. Keenan's definite case in which she
who was without appointment was lbeing appointed assistant."
(Father Donnelly's second letter, page 71.)
In these and other similar quotations is to be found the whole
basis of the attempted justification of Mrs. Keenan's. removal
from the principalship. But to show how little foundation there
is for such an assumption it is only necessary to state that Mrs.
Keenan was recognised by the Ministry, and perforM by the
Manager, and paid her salary as Princirxzl of the school up to
Marcn 28th, 1939, the date on which the three months' dismissal
notice expired. It is quite obvious that if the Manager had
not removed her from the Plincipalship she woUld be recogised and paid in that position up to the present day.
H.
THE PROVINCIAL MANAGERS' RESOLUTIONS
The Resolutions adopted by the Armagh Provincial Council
call for little eomment.Their reference to the Killean School
" appointments ", and their avoidance of any mention of. a
~9
dismissal, seem to show either that they were under a misapprehension as to the real issue involved, or that they did not
wish to be taken as admitting that a dismissal had taken place.
In view of the fact that the :lVIanager himself in the opening sentence of his letter to the COlmcil had referred to " the case
of the dismissal of a teacher" their choice of terms is somewhat significant. It was 'bardly to be expected that they would.
express disapproval of the course that had been adopted,
though it might be reasonably claimed, had they given to the
case the consideration it deserved, that the teachers were at least
entitled to the charity of their silence.
PARISHIONERS' PETITION TO OARDINAL
It is now known that some short time before the dismissal
notice was due to expire a petition in the following terms,
signed by the parents of the pupils attending Killean School,
and other parishioners, was forwarded to his Eminence. The
nature of the reply, if any, is not within vhe knowledge of the
Executive. Certain it is that it had not the effect of preventing
or delaying the dismissal:-
" We, the undersigned, humbly beg the privilege of
bringing to the notice of your Eminence the sorrow and
indignation that prevails throughout the parish at the dismissal of 1\oIrs. Keenan from Killean School.
" Mrs. Keenan has been here for a great many years now
and during that time we have had no cause for complaint.
We are quite satisfied that she has done her duty to our
girls in every way, and never before in the history of
Killean School has a teacher been more beloved and
respected by her pupiis, many of whom are now asking to
be sent to N ewry School. She ruled not with the rod of
cruelty, but with kindness, patience, and perseverance, and
girls who were formerly considered too stupid to learn
have under her teaching grown into happy, intelligent girls
with confidence in themselves and ambition to face the
world, and this was achieved only by kindness, patience,
and hard work, and in these days, with highly strung,
nervous, and delicate ,children, surely a teacher of this
type cannot be dismissed without just cause. We can only
assl'~~ that old age and failing health is in some measure
responsible for our dear Canon McN ally wavering from a
life"long praetice of justice, and we are quite confident that
if he were about amongst his people, as in days gone by,
this trouble would have been averted.
" We have ascertained that Mrs. Keenan is fully qualified for the position she holds and that her appointment is
not temporary, and we can sympathise with her in not
60
wishing to revert to a junior position a:liter holding her
present senior position for five years. We, therefore, beg
and pray that our Divine Lord will bless your Eminence
in your high office and give you the grace and the strength
to see that Mrs. Keenan is granted justice and that she will
remain with us for many years to come, and in this way
only can we hope to re-estwblish unity, peace, and good
example amongst our teachers, pupils, and parents.
" We have the ,honour to be,
" Your Eminence's most faithful people."
(HERE FOLLOW THE SIGNATURES)
MRS. KEENAN'S EFFICIENCY
Mrs. Keenan's efficiency as a teacher has at no time been
in question in this dispute. Nevertheless it may be well to
quote the last three reports furnished by the Ministry on her
work-and on the school premises. Here they are:MARCH, 1937.
General Rating
Efficient.
INDIVIDUAL MARKS.
English Oral'
'"
Very Good.
English Written
Good.
Arithmetic
'"
Very Good.
Geography
Good.
Drawing
Good.
Physical Training
Good.
Hygiene and Temperance
Good.
'"
Very Good.
Needlework
Good.
Domestic Eeonomy ...
(Note.-This was the last year in which merit marks were
awarded to individual subjects.
Under a newly-introdueed
system of inspection the Report since then consists of a short
Minute giving a general account of the work, school premises,
.
etc.)
1937-1938.
" There is a very agreeable tone in the school. The girls
are tidy in their habits and their demeanour is bright and
cheerful. In each Division the progress made gives entire
satisfaction.
Further practice in working arithmeti\lal problems to a time
limit is desirable in the Senior Division.
61
REMARKS ON OTHER POINTS.
The class-room is too small.
The offices are only tolerably
suitable. "
,:~
1938-1939.
" The children in this school are responsive and the tone is
good. Staff and pupils have worked well during the past year.
Work in the Senior Division reaches a satisfactory standard
and writing books are neatly kept. The training of the girls
in habits of self-reliance is suggested as a primary aim in this
Division.
The Assistant works in a very small room. Her work shows
promise.
REJ\iIARKS ON OTHER POINTS.
The unsuitahility of the building in its present condition is
again stressed."
SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS
Following the publication of thc Manager's statement, and
the subsequent correspondence, it became clear that the
teachers were gravely disturbed. It was only then they realised
to the full the fiimsy nature of the Manager's case. Strong
representations to the effect that the matter should not be
allowed to rest where it was were made· to the Executive.
Acting on advice which had been tendered to them by a high
authority before the dismissal took place, the Executive
thereupon decided to inquire from his Eminence, as the highest
aUDhority in the Catholic Church in this country, as to the
steps, if any, which it would be open to a teacher to take if
for any reason he felt dissatisfied with the manner in which his
case had been dealt with under the lVlaynooth Resolution.
A0cordingly the following' letter was addressed to his
Eminence:-
•
"IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' ORGANISATION,
Head Office,
9 Gardiner Place,
DuJblin,
27th June, 1939.
His Eminence Cardmal MacRol'Y,
Ara Coeli,
Armagh.
May it please Your Eminence,
.
My Executive at their meeting on Saturday last, June 24th, had .agam
under cOllsid0ration the "circumstances surrounding the dismissal of Mrs.
Keenan from the principalship of Killean School. They much regret
that they cannot feel other than dissatisfied with the present position.
In view of the possible reactions which this ca&e )l13.y have on the
~e~6ral ~elations between Catholic l\>Ianage!8 and te~er8, the Execu-
tIve -desue respectfully to Beek the adVIce and gmda.ri.ce of Your
Eminence as to whether there is any Ecclesiastical tribunal to which ,a,
Catholic teacher may appeal for a re-consideration of his case, should
he feel that it has not been satisfactorily dealt witb under the provisions of the 'Maynooth Resclutioll.'
If it is open to a teacher in suc.h circumstances to make such- appeal,
the Executive would feel deeply grateful if Your Eminence wonld be so
kind as to instruct them in regard to the procedure which the teacher
should adopt in order to secure a re-consideration of his C386.
I have the honour to remain
,~_~,
Your most obedient
an,d humble
(Sgd.)
servant,
T. J. O'OONNELL,
General Secretary.' I
The reply which ·this letter evoked was, to say the least of it,
totally unexpected. It was as follQws:c,
Ara Oaeli,
Armagh,
28th J",ne, 1939.
Mr. T. J. O'Coooe11,
General Secretary, I.N.T.O.;
9 Ga~diner Place,
Dublin.
Dear Sir,
In reply to your letter of the 27th inst., His Eminence wishes me to
say that he thinks ample provision was made for the security of
teachers under the 'Maynooth Resolution.'
He feels that this unfortunate case with all its' possible reactions' is
entirely due to the fact that you butted in and attempted to force a
venerable and justice-loving Manager to forego his right to appoint
his own teacher.
I remain,
Yours faithfully
(Sgd.) (Rev.) JOHN DONNELLY,
Secretary.' J
,
The General Secretary lost no time in entering a respectful
protest against the suggestion that he, or the I.N.T.O., were in
any way responsible for the {lourse whieh the case had taken.
On JUly 3rd, 1939, me addressed the following letter to Father
Donnelly:"IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' ORGANISATION,
Head Office, .
9 Garwner Place,
Dublin,
July 3rd, 1939.
Rev. John Donnelly,
Ara',!iCoeli,
Armagh.
Rev. Sir,
I desire to acknowledge receipt of .vour letter of the 28th nit., which
I sh~ll place before my Executive in due course, for their consideration.
May I, however, at this stage, respectfully submit tha.t the letter from
63
..•~.
,
the Executive was not intended to imply :that the Maynooth Resolution
does not make ample provision for the security o£ Catholic teachers.
Its purpose was rather to seek the advice and guidance of His Eminence
as :to whether or not there was any Ecclesiastical Tribunal to which a
Catholic teacher might appeal if he felt that the provisions of the
~1:aynooth Resolution had not been strictly and impartially observed
or applied in his particular case.
I cannot bring myself to believe that the second paragraph of your
letter correctly represents the views of His Eminence, who must be fully
aware that anything I, personally, have done in connection with this
case has been done in the course of my official duties, and on the
instructions, and by the order of, my Executive Committee, who speak
in the name o( 10,000 Catholic teachers. I feel sure that if His
Eminence were of opinion that what you term my 'butting in' was
impertinent or uncalled for, he would haye so informed me on the
occasion of my \'isit to Armagh on December 28th, when I accompanied
Mrs. Keenan as her addser. I refuse to believe that His Eminence
could so misunderstand my own personal position as to make a
suggestion which is so far removed from actual fact, and which on the
face of it is so wanting in charity and so entirely undeserved.
May 1 take the further liberty of saying that the LN.T.O. have
nE'ver claimed the right to interfere with the discretion of a Manager
in the matter of appointments. They do not, however, and cannot
agree that the qu€'stion at issne in the Killean Case is one concerning
the appointment of a tf1acher. If it Wf1re merely that, the teacher
who was about to bp removed from lwr position would not have been
summoned to Armagh, the1'(> would have heen no need for His Eminence
to appoint Dean MacDonald to 11€'ar this tE'3cher in her own defence,
there would have beE'n no need for thf1 Dean to send a formal letter
to th(' l\-Ianag€'1', giving him permission to dismiss the tE'Rcher, nor
would thf1l'(> have been an~' ne€'d to s€'rve thE' teacher with a three
111011ths' 110tice o( dismissal. That all this was considered necessary is
sufficient to show that something more than the mere question of an
appointment was at stake.
The I.N.T.O. interfered only when it hecame clear that the Manager
in question proposed to remove Mrs.. K€'enan from her position as
Principal Teacher of Killean School without having complied with the
tf1rms of his own signed contract, or with th€'! provisions and obligations
of th(> )fanlOoth Resolution.
.
I remain,
Yours faithfully J
(Sgd.) T .•T. O'CONNELL,
General Secretary."
'J';his correspondence came hefore the Executive at their
meeting on August 1st, 1939, who ordered that it should he
published without comment. This was done; the letter
appeared in the Press on August 7th. In the daily papers of
August 16th, 1939, t.he following letter was published over the
name of the Cardinal's Secretary, Rev. J. Donnelly:THE LN.T.O. 'AND THE KILLEAN TEAOHER CASE.
tI 8ir,-1 hope
you will find space in your columns for a brief
discussion of the above case, which has already obtained such regretta,hle prominence on the platform and in the Press.
Let me say at the outset that the bishops and priests of Ireland have
the highest appreciation of the Irish national teachers as a body and
of the exC'el1ent work they are doing throughout our country. 'They
,
64
appreciate in particular the splendid work of the Catholic teachers ~d
the spirit of loyalty and friendly co-operation which has marked theIT
relatIOns with .their managers. Hence they regret exceedingly the
occurrence of this Killean case, and are determined to place the responsibility for it where it really lies-not on :the national teachers as a
body, but on the Executive Committee of the I.N.T.O. and .the General
Secretary_
Before I proceed to the main question I wish to make a few remarks
op the correspondence regarding this case which pass.ed betweeI!- the.
General Secretary and me about five w.eeks ago, and which he published
in the Press on the 7th inst. He seeIll8 to think he has a grievance
because an inquiry he had made in the name of his Executive was,
according to him, not answered. He had inquired whether there is any
ecclesiastical tribunal to which a teacher could appeal, should he feel
that his case had not been satisfactorily dealt with under the provisions
of the' l\1aynooth Resolution.' The innuendo in this was very obvious;
it was a reflection on His Eminence Cardinal MacRory's tribunal and
an insult to himself; and I replied briefly that His Eminence considered that under the 'Maynooth Resolution' ample provision had
been made for the security of teachers. The following is a tranBlation
of the pertinent portion of the 'Maynooth Resolution J: 'It is forM
bidden :that any clerical manager dismiss or serve with notice of
dismissal any princ~_pal or assistant teacher until the. matter has been
brought before the Bishop, in order that the teacher, if he choose, may
be heard in his own defence by the Bishop.' Now, seeing .that the
'Maynooth Resolution' had already been 'strictly and impartially'
complied with in the case of the teacher of Killean School, notwithstanding repeated assertions to the contrary, it was clear from this
reply that there could be no room for a further hearing of the KiIIean
teache~'s easel and hence clear, too, that the General Secretary's inquiry
was adequate y answered.
The General -Secretary has another grievance, and accuses the·
Cardinal of being , wanting in charity,' because I had said in my brief
letter of the 28th June that His Eminence considered that this unforiunate case, with all its 'possible reactions,' was entirely due to the
fact that he had butted in and attempted to compel a venerable
Manager to forego his right of appointing his own teacher. Adopting
a private definition of the word 'butt,' he bitterly complains that His
Eminence!, by using the word, attributed his interference to himself
alone, ana. not also to his Executive. In this he· reads into the word
more than it signifies. The Little Oxford Dictionary defines :the word
as meaning: 'To push or run one's head into, go headlong into.' It
means, therefore, merely a headlong rush, -without implying whether
or not the rush was provoked or approved by others.
Neither His Eminence nor I had any means of knowing whether the
General Secretary rushed into this case on his own responsibility or
with the approval of his Executive Committee. Had we tried to
come to any conclusion on the matter, we should probably have concluded that action so rash must have been taken solely on his own
responsibility. We regret, therefore, to learn from him tha.t he acted
, on the instructions and by the order' of his Executive Committee,
and hence that a number of others besides himself are to blame. How
blameworthy they aloe I shall now try -to make clear.
At the time when he and they first interfered in the case, Mrs.
Keenan was about to accept--indeed, had expressed her wi1lingn~s
to accept-the position of assistant, which Canon McNally had offered
her, and which she had formerly held before her temporary appointment
as principal. Had she accept~d it, this disedifying; and deplorable.
case would never have been heard of. But just at this point the General
Secretary and his Executive stepped in. Here are his own words,
65
sp'oken to the Congress in Belfast: 'At this stage she turned to her
Organisation for advice, and was promptly told that before she could
b!O! removed from her position the Manager should give her formal three
. months' notice in writing, and that before he could do so he must
first get the permission of the Bishop of the Diocese, who would hear
her in her own defence prior to giving such permission.'
Tpere you have in the General Secretary's own wor~ the fateful
cause, the fons et origo of all the worry and scandal of thIS case. lAnd
the 'pitiful and exasperating thing is that th~ ~dvice they gaye 'lYRS
a huge blunder. They advised the teacher to lllSlst on the apphcatlOll
of the "Maynooth Resolution" to her case, but the "Maynooth
Resolution" applies only to a case of dismissal, or notice of dismissal,
and there was then no question of either, but only of the change of
a teacher from one position to another in the school. Had they previously called upon Canon McXally-which they never did-and learned
the peculiar nature of the case, such a blunder would hardly have
been possible. Is it any wonder, then, that, as I wrote to the General
Secretary, His Eminence considered that this unfortunate case, with
all its 'possible reactions J was entirely due to the fact that he had
butted in and attempted to compel a venerable Manager to forego
his right of appointing his own teacher?
Having started with this dtal blunder, the Executive Committee
and the General Secretary proceeded to· assert and argue that at the
time they interfered Mrs. Keenan was a permanent principal teacher.
Here, again, they are wrong, for it is not, and cannot be, denied
that she was appointed principal only temporarily-that. is, until the
question of the need for separate schools should be decided by the
l\1Inistl'y-and nothing that happened afterwards did or could make
the appointment permanent.
One of their arguments is that it was made permanent by the agreement afterwards entered into bv Canon McNally and her. Here,
again, they are mistaken. The oontract between Manager and teacher
is complete when the teacher accepts the appointment offered by the
IVlanager and sanctioned by the Ministr,., j the agreement, which comes
on later, does not and cannot change the nature of the appointment
previously made. Here is an extract from the Northern Ministry's
letter in reply to an inquiry regarding this question: I Whilst the
Education Acts and regulations made thereunde'r make it a condition
for the payment of a teacher's salary by the Ministry that an agreement in the prescribed {arm shall be entered into between tIle Manager and teachf'l', the conditions of recognition (italics are mine) and
payment of t he teacher are not gm'erned by the terms of any such
agree~ent.'
Now, Mrs. Keenan was only temporarily appointed or
recogmsed as principal j and sinct' 'the conditions of recognition)
are not affected by the subseqw"llt agreement., a merely temporarY
principal she still remained.
.
Another argument by ,vhich tlwy try to establish that at the time
~hey interfered in the case 'Mrs. Keenan was a permanent principal
IS based upon an alleged practice of the Northern Ministry.
Here is
how the General Secretary referred to this matter at the Congress in
B~lf~st: 'I should say here that it is t~~ practice of the Northern
MIl1Istry to regard the temporary or prOVISIOnal nature of an appointment as having lapsed after the position has been occupied (or five
ye~rs:' He means ~hat l\-irs. KeenaI~ ~aving been appointed temporary
prmcIpal an~ havmg held. ~he pOSItIOn for five years, automatically
by the practIce of t~e MInIstry became permanent principal. But
as Canon MeN ally pomted out. such a claim has no foundation in th~
~heory or practice of ~he Northern Ministry of Education. Not only
~s th~re no such practI?e, but there could not be as long as the l\-finIstry s present regulatIOns elldure.*
\Vhen Mrs. Keenan was ap-
* See
page 51.
66
pointed temporal'Y principal, the a.ppointment was made by the
Manager and consented to, or recognised by the Ministry. The Manager had his reasons and the Ministry had its reasons for making a
temporary, not a permanent, appointment. Manager and Ministry
made the appointment temporary, and temporary it was bound to
remain until such time as the Manager and Ministry should concur
in making it permanent-neither the Manager alone nor the Ministry
alone could give it permanence. If the Ministry alone attempted to
do so, it would be usurping the lVlanager's recognised right of a.ppointing his teacher-a thing it is most careful to avoid-and if the Manager alone attempted to make the appointment he would very soon
be challenged by the Ministry. Yet, the General Secretary and-I
suppose I must add-his Executive Committee wish people to believe
that Mrs. Keenan's tempOl:ary appointment, because held {or five years,
lapsed and became permanent automatically, and that such is the
practice under the Northern Ministry!
I have now not merely asserted but proved that the General Secretary and his Executive had no right to interfere in the case at the
time they butted in, that they blundered grievously in the advice they
gave Mrs. Keenan, and, finally, that the arguments by which they
have tried to _prove that Mrs. Keenan was a 'permanent principal
and, therefore, not to be changed to a lower position in :the schooi
without cause shown, are inconclusive and, indeed, utterly worthless.
I had intended also to deal in this letter with the closing stage of
this case and the procedure adopted, about which also a lot of foolish
and groundless complaint has been made; but, on reflection, I have
deemed it b~tter to let the above statement and -arguments on the
essential points of the case go before the public for quiet consideration, apart from any other distracting questions.
If the above arguments are sound-and I am confident they are-the public, and, in particular, the teachers of the country, will easily
make up their minds as to where the responsibility rests for this now
notorious and deplorable case. I think of' the great bodv of teachers
in particular, because I feel that many of them can hardly be blamed
if they took a wrong view of the case, misled as thev were by the
f'irroneous views and 'confident assertions of the General'Secretary and
his Executive.
Mrs. Keen~n was not harshly treated. She was, indeed, not considered by Canon MeN ally a suitable person to be permanent.l()rincipal of his school, but she was offered her choice of an assistantship
in either the boys' or girls' school. In considering the question of
the principalship CanoR MeNally had to take account nQt only of
Mrs. Keenan. but also of the welfare of his parish, and I have not the
slightest doubt that the appointment he made was made from conscientious motives. If he made no chargp-S Rg-.ainst Ml'S. Keenan, it is
very significant that in regard to that he himself has written: ~ No
charge was necessary. Charity is patient, and the Manager would
not. promulgate or publish unnecessary charges, calculated to endanger
or destroy .her prospects of further employment.' No charges werE\
made, therefore, lest he should endanger or destroy her ,prospects of
future- employment as a teacher, and also because he knew an alongwhat, unfortunately, the General Secretary and his Executive Committee did not know-that without any charges he could legally pass
over her for the principalship on account of the temporary character
o( her previous appointmenp.-Yours. etc.,
(REV.) J. DONNF.LLY, Secretary .
. Am C",li, Armagh, August 15th, 1939."
.
This communication @:ave rise to a series of ~etters hetween
the Executive and Father Donnelly in the first place, and
67
between Mrs. Keenan and Father Donnelly, in respect of certain
allegations contained in the letter of August 16th, as published
in some, not all, of the daily papers. The" Irish Press"
was among the papers which did not publish the particular
paragraph of which Mrs. Keenan afterwards complained. This
correspondence is here reproduced in full:THE PRESIDENT'S LET'I'ER.
(This appeared in the daily papers on August 21st.)
'w·····
. .
<~
Sil',-I wish to deal briefly with that portion of Father Donnelly's
letter 're the Killean cas,e published in your issue of the 16th instant,
\vhich has reference to the communication addressed to His Eminence
by the Executive of the I.N.T.O. 011 the 27th June last. I want to
emphasise as strong1y as I possibly can that in submitting to ffis
Eminence the query contained in that letter there was not the remotest
intention of makmg any reflection DU: or offering insult to, His Eminence.
The Executive had already, jll a statement forwarded to His Eminence
following a special meeting on January 7th~ made it clear that they
,,were not satisfied with the manner in which the KilIean dismissal case
had been dealt with. In that statement His Eminence was informed that
the Executive were "forced reluctantly to the conclusion that in the application of the I .Maynooth Resolution' to this case there had been a
wide divergence from the procedure and practice hitherto adopted, and
as understood and believed by the teachers to he essential for its acceptance by them as a satisfactory tribnual where the question of tenure
was involved."
The statement set ont at considerable length the grounds on which
that conclusion had been arl'i . .·ed a·t and asked for a re-consideration of
the case.
In view, therefore, of the fact that His Eminence had already been
made directly aware of the Executive's opinion, there was no need to
convey t.hat opinion in the indirect fashion suggested by Father DonneIly. Nor did it ever enter the minds of the Executive that such au
" innuendo" could be read into what was intended and put forward
as a respectful inquiry in regard to .a matter of ecclesiastical procedure.
'l'he Executive having received many representations from branches and
individual mentbel's of the Organisation urging that the case should
not be allowed to rest where it was. and, not being sure whether or
not the l\£a:vnooth Decrees permitted or provided for ,an appeal, decided
to see],;: authorita.tive information on that question in what they
believed was the proper quarter. Though the query addressed to His
Eminence undoubtedl}' arose in consequence of the KIIIean case, the
query itself had no specific reference to that case; it was of a
general nature.
The Executive asked for advice and guidance "as
to whether there is any Ecclesiastical Tribunal to which a Catholic
teacher may appeal for a reconsideration of his ease, should he feel
that it has not been satisfactorily dealt with under the l\1aynooth
Statutes.)) That query remains unansi;-ered.
In conclusion, I desire to: draw Father DonlleIly's attention to the
following passage in the statement addressed by Canon MacNaIly to
the Armagh Provincial Council:"Dissatisfied with the decision of the Ecclesiastical Court, it was
competent for :1\£1'. O'Connell to appeal to the Ministry of Education
within six weeks after the notice of dismissal had been served, and an
inquiry would be granted to him."
The reasons wh:,' no appeal was made to the Northern Ministry have
•
1
68
a!ready . bee" made known-.~e Executive believed that it was a questIOn whiCh should b~ dealt mth solely by the Ecclesiastical Autboriti....
N~ exceptIOn havmg apparen.tly been ~aken to Canon MacNally's s.uggestion of an appeal to an outsIde lay tnbunal .( the Executive could not
have for~seen ~hat a reques~ which merely indicated th~ possibility of
~ re-conSIderatIOn of. a case In accordance with ecclesiastical procedure,
If such were permItted, could be regarded, as .it apparently has
been, as a cause of grave offence.
I can only repeat on behalf
of every member of the Executive that neither offence nor insult
was intended. 'fhe let~er of th~ 27th June was a simple f8.nd
respectful relueet for adVIce and gUIdance on a matter which concerned
the welfare of 10,000 Irish Catholic teac~ers.-Yours, etc.,
MARTIN LEYDEN,
President, LN.T.O.
Irish National Teachers' Organisation.
Head Office
9 Gardiner Place, Dublin.
August 18th, 1939.
'
DR. O'CONNELL'S REPLY TO FATHER DONNELLY.
(Published on August 21st.)
•
Sir ,-In view of the extraordinary letter from Father Donnelly which
appeared in your issue of the 16th instant dealing with the Kin~n dis-·
missal case, i~ be~o~es necessary, in order to clea.r a.wa.y the smokescreen by whICh It IS sought to cloud the real issue, to re-state the
essential facts.
(1) For thirteen years 1\1rs. Keenall gave faithful and efficient service as a teac..qer in Killean School, first as an assistant and afterwards
as principal.
(2) On May 1st, 1934, her manager and herself entered into a fOl"lll.&l
legal contract, the effective clause of which was as follows :-" The
manager agrees to employ the teacher as the principal teacher of the
Kil1ean Girls' School from the first day of pecember, 1933, henceforth
until the expiration of three calendar months' from th,e date at which
notice in writing shall have been given by either side to the other to
determine the said employment."
This agreement, or contract, was
duly registered at the Northern Ministry of Education on May 2nd,
1934.
(3) The manager, and the manager alone, had the legal right to remove Mrs. Keenal1 from the position to which she was thus formally
appointed. The Ministry in certain circumstances--for instan~, if she
were inefficient, or if the attendance did not warrant her contmuance-would be entitled to Vi--ithdraw her salary, but as no such circumstances
arose, and as the Ministry at no time proposed or suggested her removal from the principalship, that factor can be omitted in the con..
sider.ation of the case.
.
.(4) On December 28th. th.e ~anager served a formal thr~e .mont~'
notice on Mrs. Keenan, disIDISSlllg her, not only from the prmClpalahip,
but from .any position in the Kil1ean SchooL
(5) Sine. March 28th Mrs. Keenan has been unemployed.
The above facts are not in dispute. It is clear that no perso~. o:r:
hody had the right or power to dismiss Mrs. Keenan from her pOSItion
as principal except the manager, and that ~he .manager, by virtue. of
this right and this power, did, in fact, dIsmISS her., The question
69
naturally a:ise~: Why has this efficient teacher been deprived pf her
mean~ ?f lIvelihood? . F~ther Donnelly would have the public believe
,~
,·W
that It IS because of tlie roterferenee and the blundering of the I.N.T.O.
Executive an~/or the general secretary. It becomes necessary, therefore, to examme the nature and the extent of that interference which
according to Father Donnelly, has been responsible for throwing thi~
efficient teacher on the roadside.
For almost five years up to October. 1938 1\'lrs. Keenan sa.tisfactorily
carried out her duties as principal teacher. 'According to the manager's
own statement to the Armagh Provincial Council he had I (a conversation" with l\Irs. Keenan in October, 1938. in the course of which he
told her that he intended to appoint her to her former position as
assistant in the school, and that her place as principal would be taken
by t?e assistant in the boys' school. "Some days afterwards (I am
quoting Canon MacNally's statement) )lrs. Keenan called on the
manager. She said she would consult some friends . . . . She consulted
her friends and her case was dispatched to the secretary of the I.N.T.O.,
Dublin. "
As was stated .at the Belfast Congress, the LN.T.O, having considered the terms of the appointment· and all the relevant documents.
advised her" that beforo she could be removed from her position the
manager sho lId gi,'e her a formal three months' notice in writing, and
that before -he could do so he mnst first get the permission of the
bishop of the diocese, who would hear 11(>1' in her own defence prior
to giving such permission."
H There,"
1'. rites Father Donnell,\', ",Yon have the fateful cause,
the Ions et origo, of all the worry and scandal of this case. And the
pitiful and exasperating thing is that the advice was a huge blunder."
Let us see what was wrong with the advice that has so exasperated
Father DonnelIy. Having regard to the iormal contract which had
been executed between the parties, there was only one way in which
Mrs. Keemm could be legally ~'emoved from the principalship of the
school, and that was by a formal three months' notice of dismissal.
Any other method would have exposed the managet: to the risk of an
action in the courts for wrongful dismissal. anfl the LN.T.O. could
not have prevented Mrs. Keeaan from taking such an ;action, if she
insisted on doing so. It could, therefore, be argued that the advice in
regard to this aspect of the ('ase was not exclusively in the interests
of the teacher. One cannot. however, help coming to the conclusion,
both from Father Donnelly\s letter and from the statements and attitude of the manager, that what caused the greatest exasperation and
resentment was the reference to the " i.\laynooth Resolution."
"The advice they gave," ·writes Father Donnelly, "was a huge
blunder. They insisted on the application of the Maynooth Resolution
to her case." In Canor.. McNally's statement to the Provincial Council
he charges the Executive with having forced the case to Armagh. But
the terms of the Maynooth Statute quoted by Father Donnelly are clear
and definite. A teacher IOay not be dismissed or served with notice of
dismissal, except permissioll for such dismissal or ll?tice. has been given
b:v the bishop after the teacher has been heard Jll hIS own defence.
For over fortv years this arrangement, known popularly as the" Maynooth Resolutio.l..
has been regarded by the teachers as their Magna
Charta-their one sure shield against arbitrary dismiss.allby a. manager.
Their rights and privileges under this resolution, now embodled in the
Maynooth Decrees have always been jealously watched and guarded,
and hitherto they'have had very little reason, indeed, to complain of
the manner in which its terms have been -observed and applied in the
cases, happily rare, that called for its application. ¥ather pOJ:melly
and Canon McNallv .allege that the LN.T.O. had no rIght to InSIst on
the application or'the "l\faynooth Resolution n to this case.
The
1
70
"Maynooth Resolution," l\Tites Father -Donnelly, "applies only. to a
case of dismissal or notice of dismissal, 'and there was then no q.uestion
of either, but only of the change of a· teacher /rom ooe pOS1.tio" to
(ywther in the scho'ol.1I (The italics aTe mine.) If the" Maynooth Resolution " could be read in that fashio.n it would be open to any manager,
•
without reason or cauee .assigned, and without seeking or obtaining the
permission of his bishop, to remove any principal teacher and appoint
him to the most junior position DU the school staff and to argue, if
challenged, that he was not, in fact, H dismissing;' the teacher-he
was only, in Father Donnelly's words, changing him H from one position to another in the school." That is an interpretation of the'" MaJ:nooth Resolution" which the Teachers' Organisation can never accept.
So far as-- I know, this ,is the first occasion during the forty or more
years of its existence that such an extraordinary and far-fetched interpretation has been sought to be put upon it.
When, late in December, 1938, it became evident that Canon McNally
intended to persist in his proposal to remove Mrs. Keenan from the
Principalship withou1 giving her the formal notice to which she was
entitled under the terms of her contract, and regardless OL the provision of the" Maynooth Resolution," the Executive sent him a polite
and. respectful letter asking that the terms of the Resolutio..n should be
observed. That letter and the manager's reply have already been published, and there is no need to repeat them here.
This, then, is the full extent of the Executive's" interference" which
has been so bitterly resented, and which is alleged to be H the tOM et
origo of all the worry and scandal" of what Father Dounelly so ~tly
describes as a l ' notorious," "deplorable," "unfortunate," and' disedifying" case.
~
Father Donnel1y is not content with objecting to the nature and
extent of the interference. He asserts, and claims even that he has
proved, that the LN.T.O. had no right to interfere in the case. EVer
since its establishment over seventy years ago, the I.N.T.O., through
its duly appointed representatives has claimed the right to interfere
and make representations on behalf of anyone of its members whose
interests might:. in its opinion, appear to require such intervention.
From the very beginning that right has been acknowledged and
respected, not only by Government Ministers and the educational
authorities-British and Irish-but hy the ecclesiastical authorities
also. That right will not now be surrendered, nor is it likely ever to
be so long as the .Organisation exists, fOI' such surrender would render
the Organisation purposeless. The attempted denial of that right must
sound strange and surprising, not only to the teachers, but to the
hundreds of thousands of organised workers throughout the country.
One had -hoped that the day W3.6 long past, in this country at least,
when an Organisation, with the history and traditions of the I.N.T,.O..
could be told that it had no right to interfere to protect the interests
of one of its members, or that such intervention would result, as it has
resulted in this case, in the victimisation of the individual concerned.
For both Father Donnelly and Canon l\icNally have now made it clear
that if the LN.T.O. had not interfered in the way above described in
order to secure that the rights to which Mrs. Keenan was entit1ed
under the laws of Church f11ln. State would be respected and accorded
~o her, she would to-day "b~' in" occupation at least of the s~bordin.&te
position offered to. h~r last October, but be~ause she an~ h~r Orgams~
tion claimed and InsIsted that she was "entitled to these nAAts, she IS
denied even that; she ha. been deprived of her livelihoOd and le!t
without hope or prospect of further employment. If such treatmen~ 18
not to be termed victimisation, I fear I do not understand the meamng
of the term.
.
Much play has been made of the. alleged "temporary ~' nature of
71
:::~
Mrs. Keenan's original appointment to the Principalship of the school;but it was the Ministry and not- the Manager that made it a condition
that sanction would ilJe temporary pending certain contingencies-a mere
technical device to save money if amalgamation ever took place. The
contingency which impelled the Ministry to give only temporary sanction never arose, and so far as they were concerned there was no question of her removal from the Principalship; when the danger of amalgamation disappeared it was the temporary nature of the appointment,
and not the appointment itself, that automatically lapsed. Until
October, 1938, there was never any condition or suggestioll t either by
the Manager or the Ministry, that Mrs. Keenan would be dlscontinued
as Principal so long as the schools continued to exist as separate units.
Irrespective, however, of the technicality surrounding the -original
appointment, the Organisation 'Would hold that a teacher who had occupied a position for five years and who had discharged the duties of tha~
position satisfactorily and efficiently, ought not to be removed from that
position merely to make room for another, and they would not consider
such removal other than harsh, arbitrary and unwarranted.
It will
take something more than what has yet appeared to convince the pUblic
that Mrs. Keenan has not been harshly and arbitrarily treated.
I have purposely refrained from any reference to the final paragraph
of Father Donnelly's letter, in which he plainly suggests that there are
charges, so far uudisclosed, which if put forward, would be " calculated
to endanger or destroy Mrs. Keenan's prospects of further employment." That suggestion is too serious to be made the subject of a
newspaper controversy. I have no doubt it will be dealt with in another
and more appropriate way.-Yours, etc.,
T. J. O'CONNELL,
General Secretary, I.N.T.O.
Irish National Teachers' Organisation,
Head Office, 9 Gardiner Place,
Dublin, August 18th, 1939.
FATHER DONNELLY'S SECOND LETTER.
To the Editor.
Dear Sir .-1 greatly regret the necessity of interfering again in this
discussion, but I feel it a duty to make some remarks on the two letters
which appeared in reply to mine, in your issue of the 21st inst.
In my lette~, which appeared in your issue of the 16th inst., I
said:-"
" I have now not n)erelv asserted but proved that the General
Secretary and his Executive had 110 right to interfere in the ease at
they time they Ibutted in, that they blundered grievously in the
advice they gave Mrs. Keenan, and finally that the arguments by
which they have tried to prove that Mrs. Keenan was a permanent
Principal, and therefore, not to be changed to a lower position in
the school without cause shown, arc inconclush"e and, indeed,
utterly worthless."
Now not one of my proofs there referred to has been refuted or even
weakened in the slightest degree by anything said in the two letters.
Let us take first the question of whether the General Secretar;v find
his Executive had any right to interfere at the time they did. . 'W.hat
were the circums.tances? Mrs. Keenan had ceased to be a PrmClpal
teacher, for she had been appointed Principal, in the Ministry's own
words, only " until the need for separate schools should be decided by
1
,_. , . . < •• _ "
• • _~ • • • , . . . . . . . . .
n
••
.
~n
. .
•• ' . n o r , < .-'
72
the Ministry," and that question had already been decided; the
Manager by authority of the :Ministry had already appointed a permanent Principal, and by the same authority had appointed Mrs.
Keenan assistant, and she had accepted the appointment. What reason. .
able claim, what justification, I ask, had the General Secretary or his
Executive to interfere in these circumstances? The answer is, absolutely none.
What is the nature of the General Secretary's reply to this argument?
As if I or, indeed, anybody else ever questioned the right in ordinary
circuIDstances, of a great organisation to interfere on behalf of its
members, he represents me as denying the right of the LN.T.O. to interfere at all in this case, and strikes out in an amusing passage of rousing indignation. I am sorry the whole passage is too long for quotation
here, for it is very characteristic and a fine. example of his controversial
metliods. To afford excuse for his indignation it was necessary to misrepresent \",hat I had said, and so, \1.. hereas I had claimed to have proved
that the General Secretary and rus Executive had no right to interfere
at the time they did, he makes me deny their right of all or any interference in the case. Here are his words in his letter of the 21st inst. :
"He (F.ather Donnel1y) asserts and claims even that he has proved,
that the I.N.T.O. had no right to interfere in the case."
Wjth this false text he then launches out, showing that the I.N.T.O.
had always claimed the right of interference in teachers' cases-a right.l
I may say, which in the vast majority of instances nobody denies-ana.
winds up \",ith an eye on the Labour Organisation ani! the sympathy of
the workers by say.ing: "The attempted denial of that right must
sound strange and surprising, not only to the teachers, but to hundreds
of thousands of organh·.ed ·workers throughout the country."
The only justification which the General Secretary and his Executive
might perhaps plead for their action when they first interfered" would
be their unawareness at the tiple of the nature and implications of the
temporary appointment of Mrs.- Keenan as Principal; but such unawareness would amount, in the General Secretary and Executive of .a
teachers' organisation, to culpable ignorance, and would not be
accepted as justification by any tribunal in the world. I .assert, there~
fore, once more that they had no right to interfere in this case at the
time they first interfered and attempted to compel a venerable Manager
to forgo his right of appointin~ his teacher.
I come now to the second pomt proved by me in my previous letter,
namely, that the General Secretary and his Executive blundered grie~
vously in the aavice they gave Mrs. Keenan. The Maynooth Resolu- ~
tion refers only to the dismissal or notice of dismissal of a teacher, but
in Mrs. Keenan's case there was then no question of either, but· only
of her appointment as assistant in the school in which she had been
temporary Principal. Could anything be clearer, then, than that they
blundered grievously .in advhling her to demand an application of the
Maynooth Resolution to her case?
The General Secretary tries to mal& capital out of the fact that I
. referred to her Manager's offer of an assistantship to Mre. Keenan as
" only the change of a teacher from one position to another in the
school," and pretends to grow alarmed lest, if such a change can be
made without the application of the MaynOQth Resolution, sweeping
. changes of Principals to assistants may also be made without .its application. But I spoke of Mrs. Keenan's definite case, in which she who
was wjthout an appointment was being appointed assistant, and it is
ridiculous and, I fear I must add,' insincere to pretend to be alarmed
lest Principals be similarly changed into assistants.
Just because there is no question of dismissal or notice or
dismissal the Maynooth Resolution could not .be applied to
either case-though the General Secretary fails to see this-
,
•
73
but jf any manager were so foolish or so unjust as to
attempt "to reduce a teacher from Principal to assistant without just
cause, there are ample means, other than the Maynooth Resolution, of
dealing with him. The )laynooth Resolution, as it stands, does not
touch the case of a manager ,vho might attempt to change a Principal
in oue of his schools jnto an :l.ssistantj and if the LN.T.O. wish it to
cover such a case they must ask the Bishops of Ireland to extend its
scope. To attempt at present to apply it to such a case would be almost
as Ibad a blunder as the advice given to )11'8. Keenan.
I have dealt with two of the statements proved in my previous letter,
and with the attempted replies to them. The other two points which I
proved-namely, that neither the agreement with the Manager nor the
practice of the Northern ){inistry made Mrs. Keenan's temporary
appointment permanent-seem now to be no longer contested, and that
is something to be thankful for.
Driven from their pos.ition that 1\1rs. Keenan had a strict right to be
still regarded as permanent Principal of Killean Girls' School, the
General Secretary and his Executive now concentrate on establishing
that she has been treated harshly, that !:;hc has been vic.-t;imised,
deprived of her h,elihood, and left without hope or prospect of future
employment.
That she has been victimised I have no desire to deny; but the
important question is: \Vho is responsible for the victimisation-Canon
McN ally or her advisers?
In 1933 the Canon appointed her as
Principal in a temporary capacity under the conditions prescribed by
the Ministry, and during the following five years she received £100
in capitation in addition to her salary.
At the end of the
five years he offered her the position of assistant in either the boys' or
the girls' school; she expressed her Willingness to accept the offer} and
did in fact accept it. At this juncture the LN.T.O. Executive mterfered and advised her to go back on her acceptance of the appointment,
assuring her "hat she was permanent principal, and urging her to
demand what they called her rights and accept nothing less than the
principalship.
Had the I.N.T.O. not interfered Mm. Keenan would
now be drawing· a salary ,approximately £300 a year; but she acted on
the advice of the General Secretary and his Executive, relying on their
promises that the~' would see to it that she should be acknowledged as
permanent principal.
~ Now, when .it is borne in mind that they held from the start erroneous
views as to the permanency of her position as principal, that they gave
her wrong advice through misunderstanding the scope of the Maynooth
Resolution, that they relied on arguments now proved to be invalid
to continue to persuade her that she was a permanent principal, and,
finally, that they urged her to take nothing less than what they called
her rights and refuse the assistantship-when all this is borne in
mind it is surely not difficult to see where .the responsibility rests for
Mrs. Keenan's victimisation.
I now turn to the letter of the President of the I.N.T.O., which also
appeared in your issue of the 21st inst. The President caIIs attention to a q uery addr61~sed to His Eminence by the Executive of the
I.N.T.O. on the 27th June last, in which information was sought as to
whether there js any ecclesiastical tribunal to which a teacher could
appeal, should he fepl that his case had not Ibeen satisfactorily dealt
with under the provISions of the Maynooth Resolution. The Pl€Bident
complains that the query remains unanswered, but, as I showed in my
letter of the 16th inst., it was answered, when in reply to it, I wrote
that His Eminence considered that under the Maynooth Resolution
ample provision had been made for the security of teachers. This was
a brief reply, but it is to be borne jn mind that it was a reply to an
inquiry, which was offensive, as being a reflection on the Cardinal's
74
tribunal. If the reasoning of the reply was too condensed for the
Executive I shall now try to make it more clear.
.
The tribunal of his Eminence, from which there was question of
appealing, was a diocesan tribunal set up in virtue of the Maynooth
Resolution; all these diocesan tribunals are governed in essential
matters by the same rules; what holds for oue holds for all, and if
there is no appeal from one there is none from any. That there ~ no
appeal from the Cardinal's tribunal was clear when I replied that His
,Eminence considered that ample provision had been made for the
security of teachers under the Maynooth Resolution for the Maynooth
Resolution gives 110 right of appeal, but provides solely for the hearing
of the teacher's case. And if there was no appeal from the CardinaFs
tribunal, it follows from what I have stated albove that there was no
room for appeal from any diocesan tribunal of the same kitid to any
other tribunal or court.
Hence the Executive's query was fully
answered. Of course, an appeal to Rome from any ecclesiastical tribunal In the world is always possible, but I take it that the query
regarded .a tribunal of appeal in these islands.
But why, I ask, should there be any question of appealing from these
diocesan tribunals? The teachers had no strict right to this appeal
from their manager to their Bishop, the Irish Bishops granted them
this privilege for their greater security against unjust dismissal, and it
is ungracious and ungrateful to expect any right of further appeal in
such circumstances.
The President, towards the end of his letter, refers to the fact that
the Executive refrained from bringing this case before the Northern
Ministry of Education, and adds: H The reasons why no appeal was
made to the Northern Ministry have already been made knOWn-the
Executive believed that it was a question which should be dealt with
solely by the ecclesiastical authorities." I am very glad the President
has referred to this subject. Yes, the Executive !believed that it was a
question which should be dealt with solely by the ecclesiastical authQrities, they were too loyal to the Bishops to bring it before the lay
tribunal of the N orihern Ministry, but not too loyal to bring it before
the lay tribunal of the Belfast Teachers' Congress, and there ii:t a
Protestant city before a mixed gathering of Protestants and Catholics
to misrepresent egregiously the vital facts of the case and, having heard
onJy one side, to pass a resolution condemning the action of th~
manager, and finally to give to the world on the wings of the newspapers an account of the entire proceedings. And these are the people
who "believed that it 'Was a question which should be dealt with by
the ecclesiastical authorities"!
This letter is already too long and I must conclude. But before
doing so I wish to say that _His Eminence Cardinal MacRory regrets
exceedingly the occurrence of this painful case, Throughout his life
he has respected and admired the Irish Catholic teachers, and he
respects and admires them still, for though many of them may possibly
have taken a wrong view of this case, he knows that they have done
130 only Ibecause they were led astray by the General Secretary and his
Executive.
We are all liable to err. At the time the General Secretary and his
Executive first interfered in this case, they erroneously, as has been
proved" believed that Mrs. Keenan was still a permanent Pt?ncipal.
Then 'they . advanced arguments, based on her agreement Wlth her
manager and on the alleged practice of the Northern Ministry, to
justify their belief, and these arguments have since been prov~ to be
invalid. Relying, however ~on their erroneous belief and invalid arguments, they advised Mrs. h..eenan to refuse the :position of assistant,
to which -her manager had appointed her and which she had, in.. fact,
accepted j and her refusal, under their advice, is the Bole reason why
75
she is now without employment as teacher, for her manager conscientiously felt that in justice to his parish he could not appoint her
as principal.
If they would even now admit their errors and mistakes nobody
wants to rejoice at their discomfiture; but instead they still persist
in laying the blame on others and seeking· to wds their own errors
and mistakes. Such, in a nutshell, is the honest and true account of
the essential points of this most regr~ttable case.
Yours faithfully,
(Rev.) .r. DONNELLY, Sec.
Ara Coeli, Armagh.
REPLIES FROM I.N.T.O. GENERAL SECRETARY AND
PRESIDENT.
GENERAL SECRETARY'S LETTER.
To the Editor.
C"t-
A CharaIn his "honest and true account of the essential points J J in the
Keenan dismissal case, Father Donnelly has studiously and consistently
ignored the most essential point of all, namely, the formal legal contract entered into by the l\ianager and :Mrs. Keen.an on May 1, 1934. I
must ask your permiSGion to quote once more the effective clause of
that contract, which was as follows:I C The Manager agrees to employ the teacher as the Principal
Teacher of the Killean Girls' Sohool from the first day of December,
1933, henceforth until. the expiration of th1'ee calendar months from
the date at which notice in. writing shall have been given by either
side to the othe1' to dete1'1nine the said employment."
In face of that binding contract, to which the Manager and the
teacher had both !Solemnly put their names in the presence of witnesses,
Father Donllelly now asks the public to believe that at the time the
I.N.T.O. "interfered J1 (i.e., early .in December, 1938), Mrs. Keenan
d was without an appointment," and that she 11 had ceased to be a principal teacher." If she had then ceased to be a principal teacher, how
came it that she continued to occupy the position of principal of the
school until the terms of the albove contract 1:w.d been complied with,
Le.; until March 28, 1939, the date on which her three months' notice
of dismissal expired? The absurdity of that contention is" obvious.
Father Donnelly would like",rise have your readers believe that the
LN.T.O. ".interference," as he terms it, was egregious and uncalled
for. The LN.T.O. would know n(}thing of this case-did, in fact, know
nothing of it-unless and until Mrs. Keenan sought its advice, as she
was entitled to do, and as every member who is faced with a doubt
or difficulty is entitled to do.
As the Manager himself has put it, "'She said she would consult
some friends. She consulted her friends and her c.ase was despatched
to the I.N.T.O." She came then, ~ :he had the right to come, to her
organisation for advice. The organisation said to her: "Under this
contract which you have signed with your manager you are entitled to
a three-months' notice of dismissal in writing before you can be
removed from the principalship, and, furthermore, in accordance with
the terms of the l\faynooth Decree that dismissal notice will not be
served until you are heard in your own defence by 'Your Bishop." That
is the sum total of the advice given to Mrs. Keenan. For giving that
advice, the Executive are now put in the.dock b;V Father Donnell;v. J
76
now ask what other advice could be conscientiously given to a member
~ho came voluntarily and of her own accord to her organisation, feelmg, rightly or wrongly, that she was being harshly and unfairly dealt
with? Yet Father Donnelly says that the I.N.T.O. had absolutely no
right to give any such advice and that the advice so given was a
" grievous blunder."
-'
Father Donnelly's letter contains a series of misrepresentations as
to the action and attitlide of the Executive; with these I do not propose to deal; for the main issues are clear and definite. In addition,
he makes certain misstatements to which I must briefly refer. He
states that the Executive " contrived to persuade her that she was a
permanent principal," and he talks of their H promises that they would
see that she wauld Ibe acknowledged as permanent prjncipal." Neither
the Executive nor I ever used the term "permanent principal." We
used no such persuasion and made no such foolish promises.
Every teacher in Ireland can be legally dismiBsed on t~ree months'
notice. That is the extent af their' " permanency," but every teacher
with whom a legal contract is signed is entitled to that notice. Unless
there was some good and sufficient reason, on the grounds of conduct or
efficiency, to. dismiss a teacher} his dismissal would be regarded as
harsh and arbitrary. Legal right is one thing; the arbitrary exercise
of that right is something different.
Father DOllnelly states that the I.N.T.O. advised Mrs. Keenan not
to. accept the assistantship.
No such advice was ever tendered to. her.
Both she and the I.N.T.O. were told by the Manager that if she .",ercised her rights (rights which he and all concerned were reluctantly
induced afterwards to. admit and recognise) she would be without any
position in KiIlean School.
That was a threat which the I.N.T.O.
co.uld not be expected to disregard. In their opinion, it showed a
disrespect .amounting almost to contempt for the tribunal to which
the issue was about to be referred and which alone in their view had
the right to. decide Mrs. Keenan's ultimate fate.
We now know that the Manager's threat has been made effective
since Mrs. Keenan decided to claim her legal rights and her rights
under the l\Iaynooth Decree, and because of that deciSion, she has not
been given the opportunity of saying whether or nat she would accept
the suhordinate position. That position was to be her reward if she
allowed the Manager to. make his "arrangements" unquestioned.
Because she could not see her way to agree, she is denied even the
assistantship-a position which she had occupied for eight year.s previoJIs to her .promotion to the principalship . .
Father Donnelly quotes the Ministry's own words to the effect that
l\hs. Keenan had .been appointed principal" until the need for separate
schools should be decided by the Ministry." I. should like to know
the source from which these words are taken. They do not appear
in the Ministry's letter to Mrs. Keenan, nor in any official letter quoted
by the Manager in his statement to the Armagh Council. Not that
they are essential to the issue one w.ay or another-for that issue lies
between the Manager and the teacher. The Ministry do not enter into
it in any way.
, .
.
I now come to a portion of Father Donnelly s letter whICh raISes an
issue far transcending the mere individual. case of Mrs. ~eenan, but
which sho.ws if that were necessary, how rIght the ExecutIve were to
'regard that particular case as one affecting the interests of the whole
body..
.
.
Every Catholic teacher in Ireland will have read With astonIShment,
and possibly dismay, Father Donnelly's statement to the effect that
" The :M:aynooth Resolution as it stands d~. not .touch the ~ase of a.
lJlAonager who. might attempt tq. change a prInCIpal III one of hUJ schools
77
into an assistant.)) He has 'here stated. ill clear and definite language
what was implied in his former letter, and ill doing 60 he has succeeded
in finally knitting the issue involved ill this controversy. The LN.T.O.
most empha.tically refuse to accept that interpretation of the Maynooth
Statute. As stated in my previous letter, this is the first occasion
in the 40 or more years of its existence that such a meaning has been
read into it. It is an interpretation wh,jeh is contrary not alone to
the spirit, but to the very letter of the Statute. Here are the terms
of the Statute as it appears in the " Synod of Maynooth," translated
by the Most Rev. Dr. Browne (now Lord Bishop of Galway) and pub~
lished under authority by the Catholic Truth Society:"To avoid prejudiee against the managership of schools . . . a
('lericaI manager shall not dismiss any teacher 01' assistant, male
or female. or gh'e noticE' of dismissal, until the Bishop be notified,
:';0 that the teacher. if he ,yill. ma:" bc heard in his own defence
hy the Bishop."
A manager can ,. change a. l-,rincipal in one of hi:,; schools into an
assistant!! only by first dismis5iilg him from the principalship, and,
according to the dl'l'ree alboye quoted. a manager "shall not dismiss
any teacher" except in accordance with the terms set forth therein.
The I.N.T.O ..do not, and will not, accept Father DonneHy's interpretation of the Stntute as authoritative. Nor do they think it necessary to accept his advice to the effect that if they wish the Statute
to cover such a case "they must ask the Bishops of Ireland to extend
its scope."
They have no reason to believe that on this point there
is any difference of opinion on the matter of interpretation as between
the Hierarchy and themselves, or that it is necessary to extend the
scope of the Statute in order to protect a principal teacher from arbitrary dismissal.
~
One other statement calls for comment. Father Donnelly states that
the teachers had no " strict right 11 to this appeal from their Manager
to their Bishop-that it was granted to them " as a privilege for their
greater·security against unjust dismissal." This right of appeal which
Father Donnelly would have us regard as a privilege is embodied in
the l\Iaynooth Decrees adopted at the Plenary Council held in Maynooth
in 1927 and formally promulgated in November, 1929. The introductory words set forth the .reason for its adoption.
I venture to submit \Vith all due respect that this particular Decree
does, in fact, confer Ji a strict right" on every Catholic teacher, and
that it does not lie with any person on \VItam these Decrees are binding
to deny or deprive him of that right.
The I.N.T.O. is an organisation ,ill which the concern of one is the
concern of all. For close 011 four months prior to the Belfast Congress
the Executive had made ever~' possible effort to reach an amicable
and satisfactorv conclusion of this case.
These efforts, as Father
Donnelly must' well know, were continued up to the very eve of the
day on which the facts were brought to the notice of the delegates.
If there had been the sl:-lltest mdication that the case would be reconsidered. the Executive h ould have been only too glad to ,await the
result of such reconsideration. But. as elected representatives, they
owed a duty to their members.
They had taken certain action in
defence of one of their members. It was due to the delegates that
they should \be informed of that action-due to the Executive themselves that they should know whether or not their action had the
approval- of the general body.
Father Donnel1y says the vital facts were misrepresented. He does
!lot say how; those who heard or read the Congress statem!'lnt anq
1
78
who have followed all the subsequent correspondence ivill judge how
far that is correct. In anything the Executive had done there was
nothing to regret or apologise for. Consequently they had no reason
to fear the fullest publicity. It;s difficult to see how_ the statement
of the facts of this case to the delegates assembled at Congress can
b. regarded as disloyalty to the Bishops. The loyalty and obedience
of the Irish Catholic Teachers to their Hierarchy is above suspicion.
Yours faithfully,
T. J. O'CONNELL,
General Secretary, I.N.T.O.
I.N.T.O. Head Office,
9 Gardiner Place, Dublin.
PRESIDENT'S LETTER.
"A CharaI now understand from Father Donnelly's latest letter that the reply
to the Executive's query of the 27th June is to the effect that there
is no right of appeal from .a Diocesan Tribunal to any Ecclesiastical
Tribunal within If these islands," but that such an appeal does lie to
Rome.
I sincerely regret that a simple l'epJy in these terms was not sent
direct to the Executive in the first instance. If t)Iat course had
beeIl adopted, much Of the subsequent unpleasantness woUld have been
avooded.
Yours (Mthfully,
MARTIN LEYDEN,
President, I.N.T.O.
Irish National Teachers' Organisation,
llead Office, 9 Gardiner Place,
, Dublin."
FATHER DONNELLY'S FINAL LETTER TO THE PRESS.
Ara. Coeli,
Armagh.
Sir,
The General Secretary's letter published in your .issue of August 30th
is for the most part merely a repetition of arguments or statements
that have alreMly been refuted. The General Secretary reminds one of
another famous teacher of whom many of us read with amusement in
our eschool days: "For e'en though v,a,nquished, he can argue still."
Hence I see no useful purpose that could be served by prolonging this
discussion j and I am perfectly satisfied to leave the case, as presl3nted
by both sides, to the judgment of the public,
.
YQ'!lrs J etp,
(Signed) JOH:Ij DONNELLY,"
FURTHER COMMENTS ON FATHER PONNELLY'S LETTER.
The main arguments, such as they were, 'in Father Donnelly's
published letters were fully dealt with in the correspondence
wh1ch followed, ·but there are a few minor pnints worthy of
notice. In the first and penultimate paragraphs of his letter of
August 16th he pays a high tribute to the teachers as a body;
he suggests that they were' misled, exonerates them from all
blll!me and places tl:t~ sole responsibility for this " potQriOljs
79
.~.
•
and deplorable" case on "the General Secretary and his
Executive", This attempt to segregate the main body from
their leaders-a practice not uncommon when other organised
workers ,become involved in a dispute-was never so misplaced
as in this instance, as subsequent events have abundantly
shown. In all its previous :history it is doubtful if there -has
been any question on which there has been such unanimity
within the ranks of the Org'anisation, or on which the Executive
received such unqualified support in regard to every step which
they had taken on behalf of the member concerned.
In the course of the same letter Father Donnelly states: "The
Managel"had his reasons, and the Ministry had its reasons for
making a temporary, not a permanent appointment". AB
already stated, the question as to whether the appointment was
" temporary" or " -permanent" does not affect the real issue
inasmuch as every teacher's appointment may be terminated on
three months' notice. At the same time it should be noted that
while the Ministry undoubtedly had its reasons for gTanting temporary recognition only, there is, as has already been pointed out,
the strongest circumstantial evidence to show that the Manager
when filling this vacancy desired to make a "permanent"
appointment, using the term in the sense as understood by Father
Donnelly.
Here also it may be well to draw particular attention once more
to the extraordinary interpretation placed on the Maynooth
Resolution by Father Donnelly to the effect that the Resolution
applies only to a case of dismissal and not when it is a q!testion
of the change of a teache,' f,.mn one position tOCLn.othm· in the
school. If that were to hold good the Principal of a girls'
school whom a Manager proposed to depress to the position of
a junior assistant mistress could not claim as a matter of right
the protection of the Maynooth Resolution. It is_difficult to
understand how such a fantastic idea of Dhe meaning and
sig'nificance of the Maynooth Resolution could be entertained
by anyone who had given the matter a moment's serious thought.
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MRS. KEENAN AND FATHER
DONNELLY.
" Killean,
Newry,
Rev. J. Donnelly,
September 28th, 1939.
Ara Caeli, .
Armagh.
Rev. Sil',-A letter puhlished over ;O;-OUI' name in several newspapers,
on August 16th, contaIlls the following statement referring to me: 'No
charges were, therefore, made, lest he (t.he :Manager) should endanger
or destroy her prospects of further employment. J
80
The letter also contains a passage pur-porting to be a qUQtation from
a letter written by Very Rev. Canon McNally, P.P. I have never
previously seen the quoted passage, and J must assume that it is now
made- public for the first time by you. In :this passage it is sta.ted that
the Manager 'would not promulgate or publ~h ullilecessary charges
calculated to endanger or destroy her prospects of further' employment.'
I am satisfied that these statements, suggesting and implying as they
do that I have been ~uilty of conduct which unfits me to occupy the
position of principal teacher, or which might, if made mown,
endanger IUy chances of future employment in .the capacity of teacher,
constitute a grave reflection on my character, and are calculated.) if
allowed to go unquestioned, to do Yery serious and irreparable injury
to my reputation and to my chances of slecuring employment.
I must request, therefore, that you will, as publicly as you "have made
it, withdraw and apologise for the unfounded suggestion that any such
charges exist and are capable of being substantiated. If you refuse to do
so I shall be compelled to take such steps as I may be advised, and are
open to iue, to protect my charaetel' alId reputation, both as a citizen
and as a teacher.
I
,,
Faithfully Yl.!urs,
(Sgd.)
ELEANOR C. KEEN AN,"
" Ara CoeH,
Armagh,
6th October, 1939.
Mrs. E. Keenan,
Killean,
Newry.
•
Dear Madam,-The charge referred to in my letter is the Same charge
to which his Eminence Cardinal MacRory had referred in a private
conversation WIth you and the General Secretary, on the evening your
case was heard in Armagh. To that same charge there is reference,
when I quoted from a statement by Canon McNally, which I have in my
possession, that: 'the Manager would not promulgate or publish
unnecessary charges, calculated to endanger or destroy her prospects
of further employment.'
.
I beg you to bear in mind that the charge and its nature were first
made pubiic, not by me, but by the General Secretary in the Teachers'
Congress in Belfast. Indeed, the charge need never have become
public but for its publication in the Teachers' Congress.
As to the nature of the charge. It had no reference whatever to your
moral character in the commonly accepted sense of these words. Its
nature had been made quite clear by His Eminence on the evening it
was first mentioned, and it was well understood by the -General
Secretary, as is proved by his letter written to the Cardinal on the
following day.
But though not a charge against your moral character in. the sense
already indicated, it was a very serious charge against a teacher; one,
.however, which can be substantiated, and will therefore n9t be
withdrawn.
Yours
fai~hfully,
(Sgd.) J. DONNELLY."
81
f(
Killean,
Newry.
19th Gc/obe1', 1939.
Rev. J. Donnelly,
Ara Coeli.
Armagh.
•
Revd. Sir.-In your letter published in the Press on August 16th,
reference was mrde both in your words and in the words of the Manager
as quoted by you to 'charges J which might have been made against
me did not charity dictate otherwise. I note that in your latest letter
these ' char6 es' are nmv narrowed down to one specific ( charge,' and
that this relates to a matter which was mentioned, jucidentally, by his
Eminence to the Genel al Secretary and myself, after the Right Rev.
Dean MacDonald, who had pl'eyiollsly assured us there were no charges
of, any kind against me, had heard my case, and before any decision
had been made by him as a result of the hearing. I am, naturally,
pleased to learn that the references in your published letter, which were
capable of being construed as implying serious imputations against my
character (and which were) in fact, so construed by many who read
them) have now been thus narrowed down to this one specific point.
You insist that this sFecific charge can be substantiated and will not
be withdrawn. I take that as implying that any suggestion which your
letter might have contained to the effect that there are or might be
any other charges against me apart from that specified, is entirely
without foundation) and I am satisfied to regard your implied assurance
to this effect as a withdrawal, and a denial of any such suggestion.
III view of the injury and pain which the pulblication of your letter
has caused Ille) and seeing that you now recognise and implicitly admit
that there was no foundation or justification for the suggestions which
it contained, it would not be unreasonable for me to expect that some
apology, or at least some expression of regret, would have been forth('oming;. As, howe\"er. the main purpose of my letter to you, i.e., to
clear m~' character from the imputations made against it, has now been
seI'\"ed~ I will leave it to ~'our sense of fair dealing to do what should
be appropriate in such circ·umstances.
I now come to the Bpecific charge which you allege can he substantiated and which vou sav will not be withdrawn. Not only do I not
object'to publicity 'in regard to this matter, I welcome it. I take the
liberty therefore) to quote the reference to this charge which is contained in the General Secretary's letter to which you refer, and which
was addre'ssed to hIS Eminence on the day following our visit to
Armagh. I do so as this was the only occasion on which this charge
was mentioned to me. The extract is as follows: 'When I urged that
there were no reasons why this teacher should be removed from a position which she had held "for five years, your Eminence will remember
sayina that there WE'rl' .. other 1"(>aRons." That was the first suggestion
we h;;cl of "otb(>r reasons," and when I asked what they were your
Emir r.e stated that it was charged against her that she had attempted
in som<:\ way to interfere with the attendance by calling the roll ibefore
the proper time. I most humbll and respectfully urge tha~ it is ~ot
fair to the teacher or to her adVIsers that a charge of that kmd, which
had evidently been put before your Eminence to influence your decision,
should remain undisclosed up to that stage; nor can it be said to accord
with the accepted principles of fair play to suggest that she should meet
that charae there and then.'
The cha~ge was as Hew to me as it was to the General Secretary. The
Manager, though evidently making it a count in the ind.ictment against
1
•
.B2
me, had never before (nor has he since) mentioned it to me, although
he, apparently, thought it necessary to bring it, all unknown to me, to
the notice of his Eminence. As you now state that this charge to
which, apparently, great importance is being attached, can be substantiated, I must demand the fullest inquiry into the allegation that!
has" been made.
I, therefore: ask that I be furnished immediately with details as to
the date on which I am charged with calling the rolls before the
proper time, and that you -",ill refer me to the particular official rule .
or regulation which it is alleged I thus violated.
When I am supplied wjth this information I shall immediately ask
the Ministry of Education to hold an official inquiry into this alleged
violation of their regulations. The Ministry is, I believe, the proper
tribunal to hold an inquiry where a breach of the official regulations
is concerned. I do not wish to have even this charge hanging .indefinitely over my head, and in view of the use that has Ibeen made, and
is being made of it, I trust you will appreciate my desire to have the
matter sifted to the bottom. As you are So positive in asserting tltat
the charge can be substantiated, I trust you will recognise the obligation which the demand I now m~ke places upon you and/or the
Manager, and that, consequently, ;you or he will supply me with the
details which I seek, so that I may have an opportunity of meeting
and disposing of this charge.
Faithfully yours,
(Sgd.) ELEANOR C. KEENAN."
•
" Ara Coeli,
Armagh.
25th Octob.", 1939.
Mrs. Eleanor C. Keenan,
Killean,
Newry.
,
Dear Mrs. Keenan.-In your letter of the 19th inst. you ask that you
be furnished immediately with details as to the date on which you are
charged with calling the rol~s before -the proper time.' I do not know
all the details. The statement of the facts is a matter for the Maliager,
who, I understand, is at present away from home. On his return I
am SllTe he would be willing to supply you with all the necessary data.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.)
JOHN DONNELLY."
Coeli,
Armagh.
15th December, 1939.
" AI'S
Mrs. E. Keenan,
Killean,
Newry.
Dear Mrs. Keenan.-I have just learned to my surprise in a letter
from Canon MeN ally that you have never asked him for the particulars
you said you wanted with a -view to asking for a Ministerial inquiry.
If you want the details you ought to apply to Canon McNally J for as
as I told you, I never knew the details.
Yours faithfully J
(Sg.l..) JOHN pONNELLY."
83
" Killean ,
Newry.
19th December, 1939.
Re,'. J. DOllnell~',
Ara Caeli,
Armagh.
Rev. Sil',-Your letter of the 15th instant to hand. I have waited for
almost two months since the receipt of Jour previous letter in the belief
that you would tal;:e some steps to substantiate the ' charge' which in
your letter of October 6th you descrihed as a very serious on~ that
•
could be substantiated, and that would not be withdrawn. Justice
requires that the person \yho makes a charge which is challenged and
denied should either suhstantiate or withdraw it. He cannot get out
of his obligation by sa,ying in effect that his charge was based on
hearsay evidence, and by endeavouring then to pass on his responsibility
to his informant. KoI' should it be expected that the person against
whom the charge has been made should be obliged to take the initiative
towards proving his mnl illllocence. I cannot feel, therefore, that I
am under any obligation to ask Canon McNally for the details
of the charge referred to by you in your letter of October 6th, and I
have 110 intention of doing so. If Canon l\IcNally had any charge to
make against me the time to formulate it and to give me a chance of
answering it was when he applied to His Eminence for permission to
dismiss me.
If and when such details are supplied I will meet and deal with them,
but the duty of supplying them, or seeing that they are supplied, must
rest with you, as the writer of the letter published on August 16th.
In an attempt to justify my dismissal from the principalship of
Killean School, you stated in that letter that charity alone prevented
the Manager from prom~llgating and publishing charges against me,
lest these charges should endanger or destroy my prospects of future
employment. No more certain or deadly course than this could have
been taken to destroy my character in the eyes of -my fellow teachers
and the general public. ~Throughout the country people were wondering what it was that could induce a 'venerable and justice-loving
Manager' to deprive me of my livelihood after thirteen years of satisfactory service in his school. They could not believe that a Catholic
Manager would make Use of a trifling technicality-a mere moneysaving device on the part of the Ministry-to remove a teacher from a
post which she had so long and faithfully filled, in order to make room
for another, or that, if he proposed to do so, he would have received
the necessar,': permission. It was only natural that the public should,
therefore1 ask themseh"es whether there was not some hidden reason to
account or my dismissal. Your letter supplied the answer. In the
circumstances, and hy its ver." nature, it was a cruel libel on me. It
left the public (ree to draw all sorts of conclusions as to my personal
character, and my conduct as a teacher. The soil was particularly ripe
for the reception of the seeds which your letter was calculated to
scatter and SO\\' in the interests, no doubt, of justice and fair play I
Now it transpires that even in the case of the one so-called charge on
,vhich you admit you founded your original sweeping insinuations you
had no personal knowledge of your own, and that even yet you do not
know the details. You were ready on your own responsibility to state
that the Manager did not prefer any charges against me lest it should
endanger or destroy my chance of future employment. You accepted
and puhlisl1(·d that statement \vithout knowing the details o( even one
alleged charge, and without knowing even whether it '''''\5 supposed
to hav(· occurred hefo1'e or after the }Ianager had notifie:: me of his
intention to remove me from the principalship of Killean School. You
are ,till, app.renll;'. of the opinion that thi, aUeged calling of the 1'011.
1
84
Oclore the proper time i.3 a 'very serious charge against a teacher.)
You stated in a previous letter that the charge could be substantiated
and would not be- withdrawn, yet when challenged :to substantiate it
you run away from it and seek to shift your responsibility on to the
shoulders of someone else.
Perhaps in the meantime you have discovered what a little inquiry
would have shown you and others in the beginning, viz., that there is
no such offence in the official calendar as 'calling the rolls before the
pro_per time.' To call them ajte'1' the proper _time would be a' viplation
of :the rule, but every teach8i' and every inspector, and most managers,
must have smiled at the nalure of the allegation which you and others
seem to regard as a ' very serious charge against a teacher.'
I was treated harshly, and without a scrap of consideration for my
previous long and satisfactory service, when 1 was deprived of my means
of ·livelihood. 1 regard your attempt .to blacken my character in the
eyes of the public by these unfounded suggestions ...~s an even greater
wrong. Yet for this cruel treatment you have not thought fit to offer
one single expression of regret or apology. Had I availed of the ·means
that were open to me, 1 have little doubt that I would have received
ample reparation from my fellow citizens. I am only anxious, however,
that the public should know that ther~ \vas, and is, not a shadow of
foundation for the insinuations contained in your lettej" of August 16th.
You, yourself, have taken no steps to remove the impression which
that letter created in the public mind. Had that been done -it would
have gone some way to atone for the injury and pain which the
pUblication of yonr letter has caused me. In the circumstances I
propose to send this coi:respondence to the Press, leaving it to the
public to judge the measure and extent of the justice, charity and
(air play that has been meted out to me during the past twelve months.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) ELEANOR C. KEENAN."
On December 22nd, Father Donnelly wired, and also wrote;
to Mrs. Keenan to say that he was asking the Manager to supply
the details.
" Ara Coeli,
Armagh.
2nd January, 1940.
Mrs. Eleanol' C. Keenan,
Killean,
Newry.
Dear Mrs. Keenall.-As I promised in my letter of the 22nd ult. to
do I wrote on the same day to Canon McNally asking him to SUppll'
yoh or me as soon as possible with the details you asked for, and I
now enclose his reply.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed)
J. DONNELLY.
ENCLOSURE.
" Mountain Lodge,
.
Newry,
31st December, 1939.
Dear Father Donnelly.-l am in receipt of your letter of the 22nd
instant, enclosing copies of two letters from Mrs. Keenan to y.0u re
Killean
School and copies of your reply
to them·. The busy Christmas
."
.
85
times preyented me from making earlier acknowledgment. I -have
now read the enclosures.
I see in Mrs. Keenan's letters repeated mention of withdrawals you
made, and her expression of satisfaction for same, but I do not see
in your letters any mention of withdrawals.
I appreciate l\-In:. Keenan's expressed desire to have all matters that
worry her' sifted to the bottom.' For that purpose she asked you for
, details '-whatever that connotes-and states she will then,
"immediately, ask the )1iuistl'Y of Education-' the proper trilbunal , to hold an official i n q u i r y . '
.
While appreciating Mrs. Keenan's expressed desires, I cannot believe
that her expressed intention of appealing to the Northern Ministry of
Education is sincere.
.1io
•
.
Twelve months ago it was competent for her and her advisers (the
I.N.T.O.) to petition the Ministry of Education, within a period of six
weeks, and an inquiry would have been granted them as provided by
the Education Act (Northern Ireland). rrhey failed to avail of it, and
)Ir. Q'('onnell, General Secretary, stated and pub1ished the reasons
why tlH'y refused. He said' th(,ir one and only reason {or refusing to
do su was their loyalty to the agreement that had been made, over
forty years ago, with the Catholic Bishops.'
I have no reason to assume, and I will not assume, that the loyalty
so publicly professed has been withdrawn in favour of an appeal to the
Northern Ministry of Education.
Neither have I any right to assume that the same Ministry aTe now
competent and 'will now think fit to grant a special inquiry knowing
that the parties now begging it refused to avail of the inquiry provided them by Act of Parliament, and knowing, further, :that Mrs.
Keenan is not nO\~' in the service of the Ministry. If Mrs. Keenan
desir'es to bring her case to the Ministry, she requires no outside information. She knows her grievances, and knows the redress she seeks.
In 1\Irs. Keenall's letter of the 19th instant I see an illuminative
paragraph". It is penned to expel your ignorance, but it throws its
searchlight in other directions and on other matters. It is a fair
sample of Mrs. Keeuan'6 mentality, and her conception of the rights
and duties of teachers in the matter of calling the school rolls at the
, proper time 1_the time stated 011 the time-table.
She writes: 'Perhaps in the meantime you have discovered ,,,hat a
little inquiry would have S110l"11 you and others in the beginning, viz.,
that there is 110 such oifenc(' in the official calendar us "calling the
rolls before the propel' time." 'I'D call them after the proper time would
be a violation of the rule. but every teacher and inspector, and most
managers, must h<lcYo smiled at the nature of the allegation ·wpich you
and others :'i€PIll to regard as a .. VC'I',Y sf'rious charge against a
teacher." ,
Evidentl:,' l\Irs. Keenun dues not read tl~e 3Iinislry's regUlations, but
she does better, she makes regulations which no doubt she deems more
suitable and com~enientJ and she sees a smile on the face of every
teacher. el-ery inspector, and most managers, at the idea that a violation of the )Iinistry's regulations is a serious offence. Surely the
goodl" 'l_umber of smilers she classifies and enumerates have no existence \.Hltside her Olvn fertile brain, but if they have any other than
an imaginary existence, they ma;v continue to smile-their smiles are
harmless-and in a serious moment, if they have one, they should
reflect on the natural but evil consequences of Mrs. Keenan's new
regulations in their application and observance. . Let them contrast
the Ministry's regulations and Mrs. Keenan'6 revised edition of same.
By the Ministry's regulations thE' rolls must be called at the time
stat,ed on the time-table (see Reg, Sec. 30). Hence to call the roll
86
before this time or after this time is an offence and breach of the regu~
lations. *
.
,.
Mrs. Keenan holds it is no offence to call the rolls before the time.
The teacher who calls the rolls before the time on the time-table exciudes
the .:attendance of all pupils who come into school after he calls the
rolls and before the time marked on the time-talble, and his attendance
returns to the Ministry are a falsification-a concrete lie. Moreover,
by thus lowering the attendance, he can soon remove and .disem"'ploy'" an
undesirable colleague, effect amalgamation of the school and in:B.ict
other serious injuries on the neighbour. ,Further comment needless.
Who runs may read. With compliments and best regards, I am, dear
Father Donnelly,
Yours sincerely,
(Signed)
~iRS.
F. McNALLY."
KEENAN'.s FINAL LETTER.
" Killean ,
Newry.
JU/VUQTy
•
8th, 1940.
Reverend Sir,-From your wire and letter of 22nd uIt., in which
you stated that you were about to ask Canon MeN ally to supply me
with the details of the alleged charge which you had previously stated
'could be substantiated ,and would not be WIthdrawn,' I had assumed·
that these details would at last' be forthcoming .
I am sure you will have recognised that the Manager"in his letter,
which you have enclosed, has not only failed to supply details of a
specific charge, but that he has carefully refrained from any explicit
statement as to whether 01' not any such charge as mentioned by you
ever existed, Or was capable of formulation, so .far as I am conce:tne:d.
Instead, he indulges in a series of abstract speculations! interspersed
with the usual innuendoes, all of which are entirely irre evant. They
are designed, no doubt, to obscure the simple issue involved in this
correspondence. Such tactics will deceive nobody. He endeavours
to establish an entirely false analogy between a request made to the
Ministry by an individual teacher for an investigation into an alleged
breach of an official l'egulation, and an appeal .to the Ministry against
a decision of the Ecclesiastical Authorities on the question of th~
dismissal of a teacher. No one more so than the Manager knows that
'there is and can be no such analogy. Investigations of the former
type are part of the normal administrative routine, wherehs an appeal
against a decision of the Ecclesiastical A&thorities involves a question
of policy affecting every Catholic teacher in Ireland.
The Manager's speculations as to whether or not the Ministry is
competent, or would be willing, to hold an investigation into your
alleged charge are quite heside the. point. The matter could be put to
the test,only if a. charge were duly formulated and a request made for
an investigation.
* The official RegUlation, i.e. S"ection 30, to which the Ma.nager
referred in his final letter is as follows: - " Work must be calTied on
in accordance with a time-table prepared by the principal teacher
with the approval of the Manager and subject to modification, if
required, by the Ministry."
.
-Stat1dory Rules a·lId Orde'J's of NOTtheT~ Ireland.
There is nothing in this ~r any other Regulation; wh~ch 'You1d support
the Manager's interpretatlOn of the tf'ache;r?s obhgatlon tu the mattev
of
calli~
the rolls,
•
'~
•
•
.87
I have no intention of entering into discussions with the Manager as
to. the interpretation to 1)6 placed on the official regulations.
After
th.lrteeu years' practical experience of teaching and school-keeping I
lllIght be expected to be thoroughly familiar with them.
The Manager mentions the time-table, and refers to a section of the
regulations (which he does not quote). I suggest that before committing
himself so definitely to his interpretation of Ml6 regulation which he
mentions he -should have examined the official time-table of Killean
School, \\"hich bears his own signature. In that and in all official
time-tables ·the official entry
as to calliuO"
the rolls reads as follows:
•
c
. Rolls are marked and attendanc'es full" recorded before - - o'clock.'
L may again remind you that the first hint or suggestion ever made
to lI1e I"Pgarding this particular allegation was made on the occasion
of my dsit to Armagh, i.e., almost three months after the )Ianager
h'ad dl·dal'€'d his intention or rl.'l11oYing me from the principalship, and
less than an hOUlI after the Cardinul's representative had assured
thp General Se(,l'etar~' and m~'self that no clwrg£'s of an~T kind had hpe-n,
or were being, made against me.
Though I haye thought it necessary to refer to these points in the
:\lanager's letter, they ha ye l'Pully no hearing on the issue involved in
this correspolldeuN>. The responsihility for substantiating or withdrawing the alleged charge must continue to remain with you, You
it \\'as who made the charge, and who asserted that it could be suhstantiated, You haye admitted that this charge 'Was made without
personal knowledge-that ~'oul' allegations were lmsed on hearsay statements and e\'idenee \\'hich, as it no\," transpires, your informant is not
prepared to stand over.
Despite this it does not apppur to han' ot'l'lIl'red to ~'ou that some
reparation, even by \\'ay or a withdra\\'al of the ('harge, 01' a simple
upology for having made it, 01' for having given the public the
impression that charity aloBe pr('Y(>n!ed the forlllulatio~ of ev~n more
serious t'harges, was due to me, lou t'allnot complalll that ample
opportunity t{) make UH' nec('ssar.,' amends has not becn afforded you,
or that 1'havc heen other than ('onsiderate in dealing with the
unfounded insinuations which have heen made against me. Your
failure to tak(' the obvious ('ourse and t{) make ,tlie necessary reparation
If'aves me no alternati\"e but to publish the correspondence which has
passed hetween liS sim"e September last.
Faithfully yours,
(Sgd.)
ELEANOR C. KEENAN"
THE ALLEGED CHARGE RE MARKING OF ROLLS
,
•
To anyone having an intimate knowledge of practical school
work the "charge " of which mention was made in the
Cardinal's lettel' to the General Secretary, and whi<Jh was
afterwards repeated by Father Donnelly in the published
correspondence, will be rated at its true worth, and to those
especially it must seem exceeding strange that such a. matter
could be elevated into the importance of a major indictment. But as this statement of the case is not intended
entirely, or even mainly, for those who possess such knowledge,
it becomes necessary to examine in some detail both the
" charge" itself, and to dwell at some length on the circumstances in which it came to be made.
~ "
'
88
There is in every elementary school a daily roll-call of the
pupils whose names are entered on 'the school rolls; the
presenCe or absence of each individual pupil must be indicated
by a special mark which is entered on the official "Roll
Book". The numbers present in each standard mnst be
tabulated and the totals entered in another Official Record
known as the " Report Book ". All this must be completed
before a stated time each morning. The time for its completion is set out on the official Time-Table which is prepared
at the beginning of the school year by the teacher and is
signed by the Manager to indicate his approval of the school
alTangements.
The Time-Table, which is an official printed
form, bears the words "Rolls are marked and attendances
fully recorded before ............ o'clock." The particular hour,
which, as a rule, mnst not be later than 10.30 a.m. is entered
in the blank space provided on the form.
In Killean School the exact hour befO'l·e wliich the Rolls
were to be completed was entered in the usual way on the
official Time-Table over the signature of the j\ilanager.......{;anon
MeN ally. The Manager in his letter to Father Donnelly, dated
December 31st, 1939, sought to draw a distinction between the
terms " at the proper time" and " before the proper time".
The actual calling of the Rolls and the recording of the
attendances may occupy anything from five to ten minutes, or
even more, according to the size of the school, and the teacher
must alTange to begin calling the Rolls at such a time as will·
ensure that the official regulation is carried out, and that all
is complete befm·e the time entered on the Time-Table.
Obviously there could be no regulation to say that an operation
which might occupy a period of from five to fifteen minutes
should he performed "at" an exact definite time, before
which, and after which, the operation would be ilTegular. We
do not, therefore, find an entry on the Time-Table to say that
Such an entry
the Rolls must be called "at 10.30 a.m.".
would be absurd on the face of it. Again there is nO official
regulation to say how soon before (he time for the completion
of the daily record the roll-call must begin. That is a matter
which is left to the teacher's discretion; it will depend on the
extent of the task which in tnrn depends on the number of
pupils enrolled in the school. All that the regulations require
is that the work must be finished be: ·e the time indicated on
the Time-Table.
A teacher who fails to complete the necessary entries in due
time commits a breach of the regulations. No such charge
has, however, been even alleged against l\irs. Keenan.
In her. case she is charged with " calling the Rolls before the
proper time". If the " proper time" is the time indicated
on the Time-Table, and Canon McNally in his final letter so
89
•
•
defines it, the teacher would have no option but to call the
Rolls before the" proper time". She could not do otherwise
if the official regulation with regard to tbe time of the o(}ompletion of the Rolls were to be observed.
So much for the nature and extent of the actual charge
itself.
Its connection with the dismissal must now be
examined. Before entering on this phase of the case, however,
it should be stated that the lady who served as a junior
assistant mistress in Killean School during the early part of the
year 1938 was, on October 1st of that year, promoted to the
position of assistant. 'I'his promotion became possible because
the average at the school for the two preceding quarters, i.e.,
those ended on June 30th and September 30th had reached the
qualifying figure of 50. It is well kno,~-it has not been
denied-that Mrs. Keenan .helped very materially in the effort
to secure this increased atteudance during the period mentioned. She was anxious to do a good turn for her colleague in
the sehool and, of course, the increased average would mean
additional remlmeration for herself by way of capitation payments. If the average were maintained it would also mean
that the school would be placed in a higher category, carrying
higlher emoluments for the principal teacher. Even from t.he
purely selfish point of view, therefore, it was dearly in Mrs.
Keenan's own interest that the attendance should be raised to,
and maintained at, the highest possible figure.
A few days after her efforts,. in conjunction with others, to
raise the average attendance to 50 had been crowned with
success. i.e., in the first week of October, 1938, the Manager
had his first fateful " conversation" with Mrs. Keenan, during which he informed hel' of his intention to remove her from
the principalship of the school.
If, therefore, hel' alleged
" offenee " with reference to the calling of the Rolls was one
of the reasons for her removal (and that it was so represented
is clear from the Cardinal's statement to the General Secretary
on the occasion of the interview at Armagh), then the offence
must have been committed on one of those few days during
which Mrs. Keenan was congratulating herself on her success in
getting the average of the school up to 50.
The Manager in his final letter of December 21st 1939, not
only failed to supply the particulars requested hy Father
Donnelly, but was specially careful to avoid 'ating directly
that any violation of the regulations ha.d, in fact, taken place.
Without saying that Mrs. Keenan had been guilty of what
His Eminence and Father Donnelly had been given to understand was " a very serious eharge " he set {Jut to show that
if Rolls are called " before the proper time" the average
attendance at the school might be seriously affected and· to
the uninitiated the suggestion was clearly conveyed that Mrs
!
90
Keenan did, in fact, call the Rolls before the 'proper time and
that her object in doing so was to reduce the average
attendance at the school.
Up to the date early in October, 1938, when the Manager
first intimated to Mrs. Keenan his intention of removing her
from the principalship she had no reason to think that there
was the slightest danger of being disturbed. As Principal of
the school, an increased attendance would mean f<Jr her
increased emoluments and, therefore, apart from the admitted
fact that she had left nothing undone to bring about an
increased attendance for the purpose of securing the promotion of her colleague, it is inconceivable that she would have
done anything prior to the Manager's notification to her in
October which miglJJ nave the effect of reducing the attendance
at the school. From this it is abundantly clear that whatever
else may have been the Manager's m<Jtives f{)r depriving Mrs.
Keenan-in the first place Of the principalship, and finally of
any pooition in the school, this alleged irregularity was
not one of them. Nothing is so obvious than that this
allegation on the part of the Manager was an afterthought
and that it was used by him to give some shadow of
justification to his action. Perhaps it should be explained here,
again for the benefit of those who are lmacquainted with ·the
practical working of a scho'ol, that if a child who is actually
present in the school at the time of roll-cal! is recorded as
being absent the attendance for that day will be less by one
unit, but before the IWR!I'age attendance for a quarter, or a
year, could be reduced by one unit, one child who was actually
present would need to be marked absent for every day in
the quarter, or in the year, during which the school was open;
il' more than one child were marked absent, then the reduction
of one unit in the average would be affected in a proportionately shorter time. If, therefore, a teacher set out
deliberately to mark children absent, it would be quite easy'
not {)nly to detect the offence, but to bring it home to the
teacher concerned. A Manager, or his representative, or an
official of the Ministry-even a member of the public-is
entitled at any time to check the number of pupils present
with the number recorded in the" Report· Book". If a child
who was present is recorded {)n the Rolls as being absent, that
child's exercise books can be examined and "'-~cked to see
whether he had done any written work on the aay on which
he was alleged to have been present.
Consequently it will be seen that any deliberate attempt to
bring about a reduction of average in this fashion could be
easily detected and that it would 'have to be eontinue<i over a
comparatively long period before the desired effect would be
produced, even to the extent of a reduction by one unit.
91
.'
If Mrs. Keenan had not indulged in this practice prior
to that first "conversation" with the Manager in October,
it is even less likely that she would have entered on
it afterwards when she found herself in what was practieally
a hostile camp. Scarcely a day elapsed without a visit from
one or hoth of Canon McNally's Curates who during that time
- were making ,almost superhuman efforts to ensure that the
average attendance would be maintained at its highest pitch.
The other teachers in the Killean schools had an interest in her
removal and from them neith.er sympathy nor consideration was
to be expected. One of them was named to succeed her as
Principal. The father of this young lady was Principal of the
adjoining boys' school. In such ·circumstances, it would have
been little short of madness for Mrs. Keenan to indulge in a practice which could be instantly detected and reported and which
would deliver het:. into the hands of those who were anxious to find
an excuse which could be used to bolster up the action which
was about to be taken against her. Her fear lest any such
semblauce of an excuse might be provided would of itself be
sufficient to prevent her from doing anything which might 'be
deemed to be irregular, eYen if she were ever so inclined.
It must not be forgotten that lYIrs. Keenan has absolutely
and emphatically denied that she was ever guilty of any
irregularity in eonnection with the marking' of the Rolls; that
she has indicated her willingness to repeat that denial on oath,
if necessary, and that she has challenged and courted the
funest investigation into her conduct as a teacher. That in
itself should be sufficient to satisfy any unprejudiced person
that there was no foundation for these insinuations. Bnt in
view of the attitude taken up by those who made the charges,
and their refusal eit.her to substantiate 01' withdraw them, it
became necessary tu ~how. by the circumstantial evidence, set
out above, that it was morally impossible for Mrs. Keenan to
have been guilty of them.
W,hat then was the origin of tlus trumped-up eharge of
" .calling the Rolls beforc the propel' time" which was first
mentioned to Mrs. Keenan by his Eminen~e the Cardinal on
the occasion of her visit to Armagh, after she had been assured
by Dean lIIacDonald that there were" no charges of any kind
against her"~ Having' racked her brains to discover what
could possibly have given rise to it, Mrs. Keenan could only
suggest that an incident which occurred in the school, long
after the Manager's intimation of his intention to remove her
from the principalship, might have been the grain of mustard
seed whieh had by that time assume:l such gigantic proportions.
One morning as she was about to call the Rolls, the assistant
teacher had remarked to her: " Are you not before the timeY"
Having consulted her v,~tch (there was no clock in the school)
--',---, ~,-,""'-,-",'--'-'-'-:-""-'''''-'-:'''':'"'"'', , " " " " ,',',' "
,
',';'
... '.">'-:"",7'~
92
~
Mrs. Keenan stated that such was not the ease and proceeded
to call and mark the Rolls. The strained relations which by
this time had developed between the teachers prevented Mrs.
Keenan from inquiring into the reason for this remark, or
from resenting, as she would be justified in d~ing, such. ru;tcalled for interference on the part of a subordmate. If It IS
the fact that this incident was the origin of the" very serious
charge" which was made against Mrs. Keenan, one is temp.ted
to speculate on the various stages of development thro~gh
which it must have passed before it took final shape. 1Was
the assistant teacher whom Mrs. Keenan had helped into her
new and much improved position the original tale-bearer? To
whom, and in what form did she convey the' information? It
is hardly likely that she would have gone direct to the
Manager; the latter's attitude to his teachers did not eneourage
familiarity. Who then was the intermediary? These speculations arise from the assumption that information in some form
or another was conveyed to the Manager; any other eonclusion
would be unthinkable. But in whatever form it reached him,
two things are clear and obvious. He must have regarded the
charge as a grave one, and having so regarded it, he failed
in his obvious duty as a Manager in not having itinvestigawd
there and then. Instead of this, and with{)ut questioll.Q"!'
inquiry, he assumed that the teacher was guilty, and in turn
conveyed this charge to His Eminence the Cardinal, with whQm
the question Qf the re1;ention or dismissal of the teacher WQtild
eventually lie.
The importance which His Eminence attached to this charge
and his firm belief in its existenee is evident from the PJlblished correspondence. In his letter of December 30th, 1938,
to the General Secretary, His Eminence stated that his inf{)rmation was that more than one person was prepared to swear
to the truth of the charge in relation to the Rolls and that if
that charge were proved in an inquiry Mrs. Keenan would get
no appointment from Canon lVlcNally ,or anybody else. In the
letter addressed by His Eminence's Secretary to Mrs. Keenan
on December 6th, 1939, the charge was repeated and was
described as " a very serious charge against a teacher-one
that could be substantiated and which, therefore, wotild not
be withdrawn". Both these statements show that His
EID;~~nce was clearly under the impression that Mrs. Keenan
had oeen guilty of a very grave offence, an ,offence whieh
could be fully brought home to her, and which if formally
established and recorded against her, wotild disqualify her
from occupying the position of teacher. The information to
which His Eminence referred could have been conveyed to him
only by the Manager, and again it is interesting to spectilate
as to who the persons were (for according to His Eminence
:,i
..-.-",
93
•
•
there was more than one) who were prepared to swear to
the truth of the charge. There is one passage in the Cardinal's
letter to the General Secretary which would go to support
Mrs. Keenan's suspicion that the charge had its origin in the
assistant's remark with regard to the time for roll-call.
This
incident had been mentioned by the General Secretary in his
letter to the Cardinal on December 28th and it was in reference to it that His Eminence in his reply on December 30th
stated that more than one person was prepared to swear
'" that Mrs. Keenan was in no mistake about the actual time
of day". The question must then arise as to who the persons
were who '''ere thus prepared to swear to the truth of the
allegations and what was the grave and serious charge which
was to be the subject of this testimony, There was the
assistant herself, of course, but she waS only one. It has never
been suggested or alleg'ed that any other adult person was
Were the additional
present when this incident oceurred.
witnesses to be found among the pupilsl If so, what means
had they of determining the proper time for roll-call, seeing'
that there was no clock in the schooll What guarantee was
there even that the assistant's ,,,atch was reliable 1 Was there
any evidence that an"' pupil had arri"ed on that day after the
Rolls had been called, and. if so, could that pupil's exercises
be produced 1 These are the ohvious questions which would
Occur to anyone desirous of making an impartial and unprejudiced investigation of the supposed charge, but apparently it never o~eurred to the Manager that not alone did he
owe it to his teacher to make such an investigation when the
informa tiBn was first conveyed to him, but that it was his duty
as a Manager responsible for the government and general 00nduct of the school to do so.
On the contrary this " justice-loving Manager" did not
consider it to be inconsistent with the pI'actice of that estimable
virtue to lay this charge before His Eminence, to impress him,
as he must have done, with its gravity and to assure him that
the charge could be substantiated, on oath if necessary. This
could be done for one purpose, and for one purpose alone,
namely, to prejudice the tribunal to whom the teacher had
sig'nified her determination to appeal and at the same time
to lend some coLour of justification to his own action in seeking'
to victimise her. To the members of the LN.T.O., and no doubt
to others, it IL ;t ever remain a matter for surprise that the
existence of this charge was disclosed to the teacher only after
she had appeared before her Bishop's representative to make
her defence and after she had been solemnly assured that
there were no charges of any kind against her.
This is all the more remarkable in view of the fact that the
charge was evidently regarded by His Eminence as a reason,
94
and no doubt a substantial one, for the Manager.'s proposed
action. The correspondence goes to show that HIS Emmence
sincerely believed in the existence of this charge. His Secretary, when challenged by lI'Irs. Keenan, informed her that this
charge of calling the Rolls before the proper time was a very
serious one, that it could be substantiated, and would not be
withdrawn. When she demanded that it should be substantiated the Secretary (who confessed that he himself did not
know all the details, although that had not affected his belief.
in their existence) turned to the Manager, who, he felt sure,
would be able to supply Mrs. Keenan with " all the necessary'
data ".
But no details or data were forthcoming, obviously because
the lI'Ianager was unable to furnish them. Instead, he
endeavoured in his reply to Father Donnelly tti cover up this
failure by a characteristic piece of special pleading, but he
was -careful to refrain not only from furnishing the -required
details, but even from stating directly that Mrs. Keenan !lad
been guilty of any charge whatsoever.
Father Dounelly stated that the charge could be substantiated and that, therefore, it would not be withdrawn.- It has
not been substantiated, but neither has it been withdrawn.
To this day no expression of regret or apology from any
quarter has reached Mrs. Keenan in regard to 1hls unfounded
To everyone who examines the circumstances in
charge.
which the charge was made and persisted in, this must be no
less surprising than its belated disclosure.
One purpose which the I.N.T.O. Executive have in mind in
d welling at such length on this aspect of the Keenan case is
to clear away for ever any scrap of doubt or suspicion that
may still remain in the minds of the public who, through the
columns of the Press, were informed by Father Donnelly that
the Manager in his charity had refrained from making charges
against her lest it would endanger 01' destroy her prospects of
further employment. A veiled insinuation of this kind is far
more injurious than a direct charge. One must sympathise,
therefore, with Mrs. Keenan in her assertion that she regarded
this attempt to blacken her character in the eyes of the public
as an even greater wrong than her dismissal.
FINAL EFFORTS TO SECURE A SETTLEMENT
It is known that, both before and after Mrs. Keenan's dismissal, eff-orts were made privately by interested individuals
and bodies to bring about an amicable settlement of this
case and to put an end to what very many people rightly
regard as a, very unpleasant and und~ir!!ble state of I,Iff!!ir~.
','
'~
95
i4i:,
;w;.
",-,
,
'.'
"
':
Towards this end the Executive were approached more than once
by well-meaning people, anxious to obtain the I.N.T.O. point of
view, and to learn the facts of the case so far as they were known.
The Executive left those people in no doubt as to their own
anxiety to have the case amicably disposed of, and their
regret that it had ever arisen. They were furthermore
informed'that if any desire were shown on the other side to
effect a settlement neither Mrs. Keenan herself, nor the
I.N.T.O., would be found unreasonable. All such efforts, however, came to naught.
In September, 1940, some nine months or thereabouts after
the publication of the correspondence between Father
Donnelly and Mrs. Keenan, the Executive decided to make
another appeal to His Eminence with a view to having the
whole position reconsidered. Accordingly the following letter
was addressed to His Eminenee:-
...,' -
9 Gardiner Place,
Dublin.
September 23rd, 1940.
His Eminenc,e Cardinal MacRory J
Ara Coeli,
,
Armagh.
Your Eminence,
At th.ir meetin\l held on SaturdaYJ_21Bt inst., my Exeoutive had again
under consideratlOll the case of !\irs. Keenan, who Borne eighteen
months ago was removed from Killean School by her Manager, Very
Rev. Canon MeN ally. For several months past, reports have been
continuously coming to hand from many of our branches and county
committees in \\'hich grave dissatisfaction is expressed at the continuance at the present situation in regard to this regrettable case,
and the Executive cannot but feel concerned at the detrimental effect
which such a feeling of dissatisfaction must have on the general
relations between managers and teachers throughout the country.
They venture, therefore, to express the hope that Your Eminence
would not regard the present as an inapprov.riate occasion, on which
to give further consideration to this case, WIth a view to bringing to
a speedy termination the unsatisfactory and regrettable situation which
has been caused by the dismissal of this teacher.
I have the honour to remain,
Yonr most obedient servant,
(Sgd.) T. J. O'CONNELL,
General Secretary."
96
This letter, however, brought neither reply nor. aclmowledgment.
There the matter rests for the present. Mrs. Keenan is now
almost three years unemployed. Not only has she lost salary
f{)r that time--she has been deprived of pensi{)n and incremental rights which can never be restored to her.
The impartial reader who has thus far fpllowed the account
of the Killean Dismissal Case is now left to judge whether or not
the teachers were justified in describing that dismissal as a
"harsh, unwarranted and arbitrary exercise of Managerial
authority ".
PRINTED DY CAHILL AND CO., LTD., l'A.RKGATE PRINTING WORKS, DUBLIN.