A High Court judge wants the Department of Education to attend court on Tuesday to hear its views concerning the consequences of his finding a former Gaelscoil principal was unfairly dismissed by a school board eight years ago and should be reinstated.
An “emerging solution” is the possibility of Gaelscoil Moshíológ in Gorey, Co Wexford, having two principals, Mr Justice Brian Cregan observed on Monday.
An arrangement involving two principals was described as a possibility pending other developments, including a possible appeal by the board of management to the Supreme Court against his decision.
Appealed dismissal
The board, the judge said, is responsible for the situation because it appointed a new school principal in July 2016 despite being on notice from February 2016 Aodhagán Ó Suird was appealing his dismissal to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
Are Loughmore-Castleiney and Slaughtneil what all GAA clubs should strive to be?
Wake up, people: Here’s what the mainstream media don’t want you to know about Christmas
Chasing the Light review: This agreeable Irish documentary is all peace and healing. Then something disturbing happens
Your work questions answered: Can bonuses be deducted pro-rata during a maternity leave?
Padraic Lyons SC, for Mr Ó Suird, said his client is legally and morally entitled to be reinstated as principal but is not saying that the current principal, Carol Scott, should be “stripped of her role”.
Mr Ó Suird is open to there being two principals and is willing, once the court orders his reinstatement, to participate in a conciliation process concerning how the school might operate into the future. Mr Ó Suird bears no ill-will towards Ms Scott and is prepared to work with her, he said.
Now aged 63, his client has been “deprived for a decade of involvement in the school that he had poured every ounce of his being and ambition into”, counsel said. “This injustice should not be let continue for one further minute.”
There was no basis for the board’s application for a stay on reinstatement and a “stubborn refusal” on its part to accept the High Court decision in favour of Mr Ó Suird, he said.
Cliona Kimber SC, for the board of management, said it is prepared to put Mr Ó Suird back on the payroll immediately and to pay arrears of his salary and pension entitlements since 2015.
Reinstatement as principal
The board has “no answer” to what should happen to him now, that is an industrial relations matter and the court should not “micro-manage” it, she said.
The board wanted a stay on any order for his reinstatement as principal to allow for a conciliation process and because the board intends to seek an appeal to the Supreme Court against the High Court decision which the board believed raised issues of general importance for the management of schools, she said.
The board’s difficulty is the “broader systemic” effect of the court’s judgment and how to manage the two principals, she said. Noting the school will reopen within a few weeks, she said a stay would reduce this “pressure cooker” situation.
The judge said he wants the Department of Education to attend court on Tuesday afternoon to outline if it has any objection to being a notice party and to set out any views on the matter. The request arose in a situation where the board is the employer of teachers at the school but the department pays their salaries.
The judge heard more submissions on Monday concerning what final orders he should make arising from his judgment earlier this month dismissing the board’s appeal against a Labour Court finding that Mr Ó Suird was unfairly dismissed and should be re-engaged.
The final orders will include costs orders. Mr Lyons sought costs against the board on a solicitor-client basis, the highest level of costs.
Ms Kimber said the High Court case was an appeal by the board from a Labour Court decision on a point of law and costs of such appeals are awarded only in exceptional circumstance. The board is prepared to pay Mr Ó Suird’s High Court costs on the normal level but not on a solicitor-client basis, she said.
‘Terrible injustice’
In his judgment two weeks ago, the judge said Mr Ó Suird endured “terrible injustice” over more than 11 years due to “disastrous and unreasonable misjudgements” by the board.
Mr Ó Suird was put on administrative leave by the board in January 2012 after losing his temper with a first-class pupil and physically pulling the seated boy towards him “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 the incident led to him being placed on administrative leave.
The board referred the incident to the Health Service Executive which concluded in November 2012 the matter did not rise to the level of 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 chairwoman, Melanie Ní Dhuinn, failed to do that and instead began to investigate issues relating to inflation of pupil enrolment figures forwarded by him to the department in 2009. Mr Ó Suird was suspended in May 2013 and dismissed as principal with effect from November 2015. Both the WRC and Labour Court held he was unfairly dismissed.
