“I got shingles at one stage with the stress. There were days that I cried on my way home after dropping my youngest son at school,” says Aodhagán Ó Suird.
His youngest son is now aged 18. He was in first class at Gaelscoil Moshíológ, the primary school in Gorey, Co Wexford, when his father, the school principal, was placed on administrative leave in early 2012 and was still a pupil when his father was dismissed as principal in late 2015.
A recent High Court judgment marks another important victory for Mr Ó Suird in his long battle with the school board of management to get his job back and restore his reputation.
Mr Justice Brian Cregan, in rejecting the board’s appeal against a June 2022 Labour Court decision that Mr Ó Suird had been unfairly dismissed, said the principal had endured “terrible injustice” over more than 11 years due to “disastrous and unreasonable misjudgments” by the board and its chair Melanie Ní Dhuinn.
Markets in Vienna or Christmas at The Shelbourne? 10 holiday escapes over the festive season
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Michael Harding: I went to the cinema to see Small Things Like These. By the time I emerged I had concluded the film was crap
Look inside: 1950s bungalow transformed into modern five-bed home in Greystones for €1.15m
Mr Ó Suird should be immediately reinstated as principal, with all his entitlements, with effect from 2013, the judge said. This might mean the school having two principals because a new principal was appointed in 2016, when the school was on notice of Mr Ó Suird’s ultimately successful appeal to the Workplace Relations Commission against his dismissal.
The judge, who placed responsibility on Ms Ní Dhuinn and other board members for the “debacle”, will hear submissions later this month concerning what final orders he should make.
Mr Ó Suird, now aged 63, told The Irish Times this week he had been subjected to a “savage injustice”, was unable to get another teaching position since his dismissal and intends to go back to lead the school he helped found in 2002.
“It was a dream I had and I put so much energy into it. I was often so tired I fell asleep on my knees at night when reading bedtime stories to my son. He would shake me, saying: ‘Dúisigh Daidí,’” said Ó Suird.
“I intend going back as principal and I intend leading the school and I intend taking the dream we had as the founding committee to have a Gaelscoil in Gorey of the highest standard.”
He never contemplated the fight “to clear my name” would take so long.
“Looking back on it, it was like being caught in quicksand, you don’t have time to analyse it. It was a grinding down, a relentless grinding down. It wasn’t even David versus Goliath, it was more like a steamroller trying to crush an ant,” he said.
Mr Ó Suird had had a good relationship with the school’s former board of management, which was replaced in late 2011 by a new board, with a new chair, Ms Ní Dhuinn.
The dispute with the new board was triggered by an incident in January 2012 which involved the principal banging on the desk of a first-class pupil and pulling the child towards him by his jumper.
Mr Ó Suird admitted at the time his actions were “entirely wrong”, the pupil’s parents accepted his apology and regarded the matter as a minor incident.
The board placed him on administrative leave and Ms Ní Dhuinn referred the matter to the Health Service Executive, which concluded in late 2012 that it did not amount to physical abuse of a child and said the school should conduct its own investigation with a view to ensuring such incidents were prevented.
Mr Justice Cregan said no comprehensive investigation had been concluded by Ms Ní Dhuinn and it was “entirely unreasonable” that Mr Ó Suird had remained on administrative leave while she, on foot of concerns raised by two staff, began an investigation into pupil enrolment figures provided by Mr Ó Suird to the Department of Education in 2009-2010.
In a letter of May 2013, she said she was invoking a “stage four” disciplinary procedure – the highest level – and suspending the principal pending further investigation of concerns of fraudulent misrepresentation in relation to enrolment figures provided to the department in 2009.
The judge, having strongly criticised the board’s conduct of the disciplinary process, upheld the Labour Court finding that Mr Ó Suird had been unfairly dismissed.
The board, in its treatment of Mr Ó Suird, had breached “all, or almost all”, of the principles and procedures for dealing with disciplinary matters concerning school principals, he said.
Following a Garda investigation on foot of a Department of Education inspector’s report, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided against any prosecution concerning the enrolment matter, he noted.
Mr Ó Suird disputed any fraud and said that while there might have been some overstatement of enrolment figures, this was done for the benefit of the school and with full knowledge and approval of the old board.
The judge described his evidence as “overwhelming” and noted there had been no finding of fraud by an independent disciplinary appeal panel, the Department of Education inspector or the Labour Court.
It appeared Mr Ó Suird was dismissed because he had included nine children in the enrolment returns to the department in September-October 2009, nine children who existed in real life and had attended the school but were no longer doing so, he said. This was done with the knowledge and approval of the then board and in a context of a lack of legislative clarity relating to enrolments.
The Labour Court’s finding of an “animus” against Mr Ó Suird by the board and Ms Ní Dhuinn was justified, the judge found.
Reacting to the outcome this week, Mr Ó Suird said: “I feel as If I have just finished an ultra-marathon – I’m tired.”
He welcomed the judgment outlining what the judge described as the teacher’s “odyssey” over more than 11 years. “It was as if he had sat through the whole thing with us.”
The “relentless grinding down” over the years has had an enormous impact on himself and his family, emotionally and financially, he said.
“It has cost me in every sense,” he said.
After he was dismissed, the family was dependent on the income of his wife Emer, a teacher in another school, while he remained unemployed at home, where he felt “like a caged lion”. He was very conscious of the impact on his sons while they remained in the Gaelscoil.
When the older two had progressed to secondary school, he would drive his youngest son to the Gaelscoil.
“There were days that I cried on the way home but I never let him out of the car without telling a joke.”
He was very depressed for a time but said he got through thanks to the support of his wife, family and friends.
“I couldn’t have kept going without Emer and her incredible support.
“So many friends helped too by gentle kind words and gestures. Chatting to me, checking up on me, coming swimming with me and just being there when I needed affirmation or strength.”
He is full of praise for his solicitor Robert Dore, who took on the case in 2014, and his lawyers, the late Frank Callanan SC, Padraic Lyons SC and barrister Hugh McDowell.
He found “great solace and strength” in prayer and attended Mass most days. He took up swimming and running and is a “great believer” in “blue green therapy”, the benefits of being out in nature. He has become actively involved in water safety and other activities in his locality.
“I’m one of the few people who benefited from Covid because, instead of being home alone, my wife and children were here. I walked up and down the lane so much I ended up jogging.”
He is very pleased with the High Court outcome but said the “greatest relief” was the 2018 WRC decision which found he had been unfairly dismissed.
“Up to then I could and did not talk about it, I did not want to be seen as trying to influence the process. Once the WRC decision came out, I felt I could talk about it,” he said.
The board lost an appeal over the WRC decision to the Labour Court, which heard the case between late 2018 and July 2021 and delivered its decision in June 2022. Mr Ó Suird said he was concerned that 10-day hearing had taken so long to conclude and that he must pay costs of it.
He is awaiting a High Court hearing on July 28th when submissions will be heard about what final orders should be made. Ahead of that hearing, he is adamant he wants to “look forward, not back”.
“Every day in your life is a new chapter,” he said.
