A school cannot have two principals and a High Court finding that a Gaelscoil principal was unfairly dismissed eight years ago seems to mean his re-engagement as principal, counsel for the Minister for Education has said.
There is then “an issue” for the sitting principal at Gaelscoil Moshíológ in Gorey, Co Wexford, barrister Mark Finan, for the Minister, outlined.
Carol Scott was appointed principal by the school’s board of management in July 2016, some nine months after the dismissal of Aodhagán Ó Suird and some five months after he initiated a complaint of unfair dismissal to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
Mr Justice Brian Cregan, who last month dismissed the board’s appeal against a Labour Court finding that Mr Ó Suird was unfairly dismissed and should be re-engaged, said Mr Finan’s submissions were “very helpful”.
Dancing with the Stars 2025: Who are the contestants, when is it on and more
The Legend of Sparrow Robertson: The last sportswriter in Nazi Paris
Joe Humphreys: Lessons in philosophy from Sally Rooney’s latest novel that can help us make sense of the world
If we really wanted to be good and healthy in 2025, we’d resolve to pester our politicians
The judge has asked the board and Mr Ó Suird to see if a “creative” solution can be negotiated or mediated before he makes final orders on Thursday.
In observations, the judge said a “two principals” solution now appears “off the table” and the “direction of travel” appeared to be Mr Ó Suird being reengaged as principal, which would have “some knock-on effect” on Ms Scott’s role.
‘Very unfortunate’
That was “very unfortunate” but the board should never have appointed her as principal when Mr Ó Suird had commenced a complaint to the WRC, he said.
Mr Finan attended court on Tuesday in the context of the judge’s proposal to join the Minster to the case because the department pays teachers employed by boards of management.
Having welcomed being made a notice party, Mr Finan said the department was taking no view on the facts of the case but its position is that there are only monies under section 24 of the Education Act for “a principal” and not for two.
Counsel indicated that the department saw benefit in having time to apprise itself as to how the parties view their positions and how a solution might arise.
Cliona Kimber SC, for the board, said considerable time has already been spent trying to reach a settlement and it might be useful to see if a mediator could be engaged at this stage.
The board is “absolutely committed” to the best interests of the school and to finding any creative solution to deal with this matter, she said. It is not that the board is against Mr Ó Suird but it is conscious it is the employer of the sitting principal, she said.
Online abuse
She knew the judge took the view this situation was “of the board’s own making”, adding: “We are where we are.”
Online vilification of the board chair, Melanie Ní Dhuinn, is continuing and the board stressed all decisions in this matter were collectively taken by it with consultation and there was no “solo run” by any person, counsel said.
The judge said it is “shocking” that online abuse occurs against any person, including Ms Ní Dhuinn.
Barrister Hugh McDowell, for Mr Ó Suird, said no parties “should ever close the door on compromise” and his client was not doing so but any process must be based on “a common understanding” that Mr Ó Suird is entitled to be reengaged at this Gaelscoil.
Addressing the argument that a school can only have one principal, counsel said a statute may be read in the plural as well as the singular.
When two schools are amalgamated, one principal becomes principal of the new entity and the other becomes a “privileged assistant” who is paid a principal’s allowance, he added.
Barrister Elizabeth Ann Kirwan, for Ms Scott, who is not a party to the case, said her client was lawfully appointed as principal, has carried out that role for seven years and any order made by the court should be cognisant of that.
‘Disastrous’
In his judgment last month, the judge said Mr Ó Suird endured “terrible injustice” over more than 11 years due to “disastrous and unreasonable misjudgements” by the board.
He 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 from other parents led to him being placed on administrative leave.
The board referred the incident to the HSE, which concluded in November 2012 that the matter did not involve physical abuse of a child. It recommended the school carry out its own investigation with a view to preventing such incidents.
The judge said the board instead began investigating 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 have all held he was unfairly dismissed.
