The circumstances in which a school can validly dismiss a principal for wrongdoing is one of the issues the Supreme Court has been asked to decide upon arising from findings that a Gaelscoil principal was unfairly dismissed eight years ago. A High Court judge ruled he must get his job back.
Solicitors Mason Hayes and Curran (MHC) last week filed an application on behalf of the board of management of Gaelscoil Moshíológ in Gorey, Co Wexford, seeking leave to appeal a High Court decision on the board’s treatment of Aodhagán Ó Suird.
After the court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that Mr Ó Suird was unfairly dismissed in November 2015, he was re-engaged, by court order, as principal earlier this month.
It is understood the school board of management was dissolved on August 16th last and a single school manager, a retired school principal, was appointed the following day. The application for leave to appeal, in the name of the board, was filed by MHC on August 24th.
Nil Yalter: Solo Exhibition – A fascinating glimpse of a historically influential artist
A Californian woman in Dublin: ‘Ireland’s not perfect, but I do think as a whole it is moving in the right direction’
Will Andy Farrell’s Lions sabbatical hurt Ireland’s Six Nations chances?
How does VAT in Ireland compare with countries across Europe? A guide to a contentious tax
Given the dissolution of the board, it is understood Mr Ó Suird’s solicitor, Robert Dore, wrote this week to the legal firm urgently seeking clarity, by September 1st, about what entity is pursuing an appeal and raised issues about whether the new school manager was consulted about the application.
The leave application concerns a judgment by Mr Justice Brian Cregan in July upholding findings by the Labour Court that Mr Ó Suird was unfairly dismissed. The judge ordered his immediate re-engagement, with the effect of removing the school’s incumbent principal since 2016 who has been employed elsewhere by the Department of Education.
In the leave application, it is argued an appeal is necessary in the interests of justice and because the case raises issues of public importance affecting schools, and others, as employers.
It is argued the High Court made several errors, including compelling the school “to re-engage a principal in whom it has no trust and confidence and to remove a lawfully appointed incumbent principal of seven years’ service”.
Mr Ó Suird had admitted submitting overstated pupil enrolment figures to the Department of Education, leading to the unwarranted appointment of an extra mainstream teacher in contravention of Department Circulars, the application states.
The circumstances in which a school can validly dismiss a principal for wrongdoing raise substantial issues of general importance and application for boards of management of all schools with significant legal consequences, it is stated.
It is argued, inter alia, the High Court erred in its interpretation of the Unfair Dismissals Act and in directing the school to pay Mr Ó Suird’s legal costs at the highest level, on a solicitor client basis. It is understood the costs are substantial and that the school is insured for such litigation.
Other issues concern the role and jurisdiction of the High Court in employment appeals. It is claimed the High Court incorrectly interpreted facts found by the Labour Court as meaning the making of allegations against Mr Ó Suird were wholly baseless and improper.
When ordering re-engagement, Mr Justice Cregan said the board’s actions had resulted in the “complete destruction” of Mr Ó Suird’s career over 11 years and it was “well past time” for its “vendetta” against him to end.
The board had lost three cases – before the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Labour Court and High Court – over its dismissal of Mr Ó Suird and there was “no reality” to the outline grounds for a Supreme Court appeal, he said.
Mr Ó Suird was put on administrative leave 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, which the judge found was done with the knowledge and involvement of a previous board of management. 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.
