A reasonable decision was taken to dismiss a Gaelscoil principal after his admitted falsification of pupil enrolment figures and an order re-engaging him as principal should be overturned, the Supreme Court has been told.
Findings that Aodhagán Ó Súird was unfairly dismissed nine years ago and directing that he get his job back last year were based on errors of law and the case should be sent back to the Labour Court for a fresh hearing in line with the correct legal tests and principles as clarified by the Supreme Court, submitted Cliona Kimber SC, for the board of management (BOM) of Gaelscoil Moshíológ in Gorey, Co Wexford.
Trust and confidence between a school, its principal and board is essential, but the High Court and Labour Court failed to take those factors into account in directing the re-engagement of Mr Ó Súird, she said. The falsification of enrolment figures had led to the school getting an extra teacher and to the Department of Education looking for its money back from the school, she said.
Pádraic Lyons SC, for Mr Ó Súird, argued the former BOM was determined to remove his client as principal, and the Labour Court and High Court were correct in finding his dismissal in 2015 was unfair and disproportionate.
The inflation of pupil enrolment figures was done with the knowledge and approval of the former BOM and was for the benefit of the school, not for the benefit of Mr Ó Súird, who had acknowledged he should not have done it, counsel said.
In circumstances including his client’s dismissal after a two-year suspension, delay over years in the determination of the Labour Court appeal and other hearings, and the impact on his client’s life and mental health, the findings that Mr Ó Súird was unfairly dismissed and directing re-engagement were reasonable and proportionate, he argued.
A five-judge Supreme Court reserved judgment on Monday after a day-long hearing of an appeal by the BOM against a High Court decision leading to the re-engagement last year of Mr Ó Súird as principal.
The Labour Court was the respondent to the appeal, with Mr Ó Súird and the Department of Education as notice parties.
The significant legal issues raised have potential implications for other disciplinary investigations and employment law proceedings.
The appeal is also against the High Court’s order requiring the school to pay Mr Ó Súird legal costs on the highest level.
The court previously heard the BOM which had decided to dismiss Mr Ó Súird has been replaced, and a new school manager has been appointed.
Last July, in a judgment heavily critical of the former BOM, Mr Justice Brian Cregan in the High Court dismissed its appeal against a 2019 Labour Court decision that Mr Ó Súird was unfairly dismissed in 2015.
The judge directed his re-engagement last August, having been told that Carol Scott, principal of the school since July 2016, had reached a “mutually satisfactory” agreement with the Department of Education.
Mr Ó Súird was placed on administrative leave by the former BOM 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 Súird’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 High Court said the board instead began to investigate other issues relating to inflation of pupil enrolment figures forwarded by Mr Ó Súird to the Department of Education in 2009. He was suspended in May 2013 and dismissed with effect from November 2015.
Mr Ó Súird maintained the board was informed of, and approved, his conduct in relation to the enrolment figures. He argued that reporting enrolment figures was a grey area at the time, with conflicting guidance between Department of Education circulars and the provisions of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000.
The Workplace Relations Commission, Labour Court and High Court all held he had been unfairly dismissed.
- Listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the latest analysis and chat
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
