A Gaelscoil principal who was unfairly dismissed eight years ago must be re-engaged as principal of the school with effect from Friday, the High Court has ordered.
The sitting principal, who was not a party to the litigation but will be displaced, has reached a “mutually satisfactory” agreement with the Department of Education, the court heard.
In ordering the re-engagement of Aodhagán Ó Suird as “the only possible option”, Mr Justice Brian Cregan said he is entitled to resume his professional life and career from tomorrow.
It is “well past time” for “this vendetta” by the board of management of Gaelscoil Moshíológ in Gorey, Co Wexford against him to end, he said. “It is time for the board to accept that it unfairly dismissed Mr Ó Suird and to seek to make amends.”
Orla Tinsley: The reality of having to fight for basic rights from all angles is exhausting
Dancing with the Stars 2025: Who are the contestants, when is it on and more
When the Nazis occupied Paris, his colleagues fled, but 84-year-old Sparrow Robertson kept filing his sports column
Joe Humphreys: Lessons in philosophy from Sally Rooney’s latest novel that can help us make sense of the world
The judge, who awarded legal costs at the highest level to Mr Ó Suird, represented by Hugh McDowell, instructed by solicitor Robert Dore, against the board, said its actions have resulted in the “complete destruction” of Mr Ó Suird’s career over 11 years.
The board has lost three battles – before the Workplace Relations Commission, Labour Court and High Court – over its dismissal of Mr Ó Suird and should not need a “fourth bite” at the cherry, an appeal to the Supreme Court, he said. He considered the appeal was being sought “in bad faith” and there was “no reality” to the outline grounds of appeal.
The education of children, he also said, is “almost a sacred duty” and this board “has responsibility to inculcate values such as justice, fairness and respect for the rule of law”.
In its actions towards Mr Ó Suird, the board sought to destroy his reputation, his constitutional right to a good name and his right to a proper hearing in accordance with law.
The board needs to “make its peace” with Mr Ó Suird, who has indicated he is open to that, and work with him for the better welfare of the school and its pupils”.
He delivered a 50 page judgment on Thursday making final orders arising from his judgment last month dismissing the board’s appeal against a Labour Court finding Mr Ó Suird was unfairly dismissed and should be re-engaged.
Mr Ó Suird will replace Carol Scott, who was appointed principal in July 2016 some months after Mr Ó Suird initiated a complaint to the WRC over his November 2015 dismissal.
Both teachers were in court on Thursday when the judge was told a “mutually satisfactory” agreement has been reached between Ms Scott and the Department of Education. Mark Finan BL, for the Minister for Education, said the agreement was confidential and thanked Ms Scott for her engagement, pragmatism, flexibility and commitment to the school.
The judge, who said he has “considerable sympathy” for Ms Scott, said she should never have been appointed principal on a permanent basis while litigation by Mr Ó Suird was ongoing and the blame for her current predicament was not the fault of Mr Ó Suird but of the board.
As a former teacher in the school, and later acting principal, Ms Scott was aware when she took the position of the litigation by her predecessor, including of the WRC decision in 2018 of unfair dismissal, he added.
The judge awarded legal costs at the highest level – legal practitioner/client costs – to Mr Ó Suird against the board.
He refused the board’s application for a stay on the reengagement order pending its possible appeal to the Supreme Court over some findings in his main judgment. The board said it would in the interim put Mr ÓSuird back on the payroll and pay arrears of salary and pension contributions.
Other final orders included ones putting Mr Ó Suird back on the payroll, for all arrears of pay from November 2015 to be paid by September 15th and for all previous entitlements to be restored.
In his judgment today, the judge made strong criticisms of the board’s conduct of the litigation. He described as “profoundly wrong” that, in appointing a new principal, it had pre-empted the jurisdiction of the WRC, Labour Court and, on appeal, the High Court.
That was an “indefensible” attempt to tie the hands of those tribunals and to deny to Mr Ó Suird the key remedies of reinstatement and/or reengagement and an attempt to “destroy his career irrevocably”, he said.
Mr Ó Suird was put on administrative leave by the board after an incident in January 2012 where he physically pulled a seated first class pupil “towards me by his jumper to remonstrate with him”.
The boy’s parents accepted Mr Ó Suird’s apology and considered the incident a “minor” one but complaints by other parents about it led to him being placed on administrative leave.
The board referred the incident to the HSE which concluded in November 2012 the matter did not involve physical abuse of a child and recommended the school carry out its own investigation with a view to preventing such incidents.
The judge said the board instead began to investigate other issues relating to inflation of pupil enrolment figures forwarded by Mr Ó Suird to the Department of Education in 2009. He was suspended in May 2013 and dismissed with effect from November 2015.
The WRC, Labour Court and High Court all held he was unfairly dismissed.
