A school principal is “terrified and traumatised” she may lose the job she loves following a decision that a former principal was unfairly dismissed and should be immediately reinstated, the High Court has heard.
Carol Scott, who was appointed principal of Gaelscoil Moshíológ in Gorey, Co Wexford, in 2016, and her predecessor, Aodhagán Ó Suird, who was dismissed in 2015, were both in court on Friday when Mr Justice Brian Cregan heard submissions concerning his judgment earlier this month in favour of Mr Ó Suird.
He will hear more submissions on Monday about what precise orders to make but appealed to the school board of management (BOM) and Mr Ó Suird to engage in the interim about a possible “bottom line” the latter could accept.
The court is dealing with “a very difficult human drama and a very difficult dilemma”, he said.
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
He was “really dismayed” with the board apparently maintaining the position they do not want Mr Ó Suird back in the school after the court’s decision he should be reinstated.
This was one of those “rare” cases where the maxim, “justice must be done though the heavens fall”, applies, he said.
Cliona Kimber SC, for the board of management, said, after discussions with the board and the school insurers, her instructions “at present” were to seek to appeal the judge’s judgment upholding a Labour Court decision Mr Ó Suird was unfairly dismissed and his direction Mr Ó Suird is entitled to immediate reinstatement.
The board considers the judgment raises several issues with broader implications for schools and boards of management generally, she outlined. The board’s concerns included about the judge’s comments about the board referring a child protection matter to the HSE and about obligations of school principals when making pupil enrolment returns to the Department of Education.
The board wants a stay on the court making final orders, including any reinstatement order, pending any such appeal but a stay was strongly opposed by Padraic Lyons SC, for Mr Ó Suird.
The board has no automatic right to an appeal and is seeking to “unscramble” the court’s judgment, counsel said.
In exchanges with the judge, Ms Kimber said the High Court has jurisdiction simply to dismiss or allow the board’s appeal against a Labour Court decision and the matter has to go back to the Labour Court, with whatever comments the judge might wish to make, for any variation of the Labour Court orders.
The Labour Court decision referred to “re-engagement” of Mr Ó Suird with all his entitlements, effective from 2017, which is different in law from “reinstatement”, counsel said.
Re-engagement might mean him being re-engaged in another teaching position or in another school and the Department of Education may need to be involved to achieve “a just solution”, she said.
The salary issues are a “logical consequence” of the court findings but Mr Ó Suird returning to the school “presents more difficulties”, she said.
When Ms Kimber said the court’s judgment had been “traumatic” for the school, and the board chairwoman, Melanie Ní Dhuinn, had been vilified by some in her community arising from it, the judge said he was “appalled” to hear that. The matter was also traumatic for Mr Ó Suird and should be addressed as soon as possible, he said.
Maireád McKenna SC said she was representing the interests of Carol Scott, who is not a party to the case but, as the incumbent principal of the school and a member of the Irish National Teachers Organisation (INTO), was notified of the judgment.
Ms Scott acknowledges and is respectful of the court’s judgment, while not saying she entirely agrees with all of it, counsel said. Ms Scott was very concerned about any impact on her role as principal which she has lawfully held since 2016.
Ms Scott is “an innocent person in all of this” and wishes to remain as principal, a role to which she is deeply committed and very happy in, counsel said.
Now on holiday, Ms Scott is due back in the school on August 21st and is “terrified and traumatised” she may not have a job, counsel said. She has been inundated with messages from parents and others. None of this was a criticism of Mr Ó Suird but the uncertainty was “very unsettling personally and professionally”.
Anything that affects Ms Scott’s role would be something the INTO might challenge, counsel added.
The judge said he would not make Ms Scott a notice party to the case but she is entitled to attend court, to be heard and to get documents.
In a 135-page judgment, delivered earlier this month, the judge said Mr Ó Suird had endured “terrible injustice” over more than 11 years due to “disastrous and unreasonable misjudgements” by the board of management
Mr Ó Suird was put on administrative leave by the board on January 20th, 2012, after an incident where he lost his temper with a first-class pupil and, while the boy was seated, “physically pulled him 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 some other parents about the incident led to Mr Ó Suird being placed on administrative leave by the BOM on January 26th.
The board referred the incident to the HSE 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 Ms Ní Dhuinn failed to do that and instead began to investigate other issues relating to the inflation of pupil enrolment figures forwarded by Mr Ó Suird to the Department of Education.
Mr Ó Suird was suspended in May 2013 and in August 2015 was dismissed as principal with effect from November 2015. The Workplace Relations Commission and Labour Court later held he was unfairly dismissed.
