The Supreme Court has found that the Labour Court was wrong to order the re-instatement of a Co Wexford gaelscoil principal to the job he had been removed from a decade ago.
The five-judge court said that while the Labour Court was entitled to find that Gaelscoil Moshiolog's board of management had unfairly dismissed Aodhagan Ó Suird in 2015, it had erred in law in finding that he should have been re-engaged.
Giving the court's decision in what has been a long and complex legal battle, the Chief Justice, Donal O'Donnell, said that given the "inordinate amount of time that has already elapsed" in this case it would "not be appropriate" given the circumstances to set aside the Labour Court's decision, which had been upheld by the High Court, and remit it back for a fresh consideration.
The Chief Justice also noted that arising out of the High Court's decision in the case last year, Mr Ó Suird, whose dismissal arose over allegations he had inflated enrolment figures at the school, has been back in the position for almost a year, and the person who had previously acted in that position has left the school.
The Supreme Court gave its ruling following Mr Justice Brian Cregan's dismissal of the board's appeal against the Labour Court's finding regarding Mr Ó Suird.
The High Court directed that Mr Ó Suird be re-engaged as the school's principal from August 4th, 2023.
The WRC, as well as the Labour Court, had also previously found that Mr Ó Suird had been wrongly dismissed by the board, and ordered his re-instatement in 2017.
The board, represented by Cliona Kimber SC instructed by Mason Hayes and Curran Solicitors, appealed the matter to the Supreme Court on points of law including that the Labour Court had erred in its findings.
The Labour Court was the respondent to the Supreme Court appeal, while Mr Ó Suird, who opposed the appeal, was a notice party.
Giving its ruling on Wednesday, the Chief Justice Donal O'Donnell, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, Ms Justice Iseult O'Malley, Mr Justice Maurice Collins and Mr Justice Brian Murray all agreed that no proper consideration has been given by the Labour Court in this case to the exceptional nature of the remedy of re-instatement, nor the practicality of such re-engagement.
The impact of the decision on the school and the person who had been appointed as school principal following Mr Ó Suird's dismissal had not been properly taken into account by the Labour Court, the Supreme Court also found.
The decisions of the High Court to uphold the Labour Court to order his reinstatement were made in excess of proper jurisdiction, the Chief Justice said in his judgement.
Any decision on the exceptional remedy of re-engagement to the original position requires that it be reasoned and justified by reference to the circumstances of the case, the Chief Justice said.
Proportionate response
Mr Justice O'Donnell said the finding that Mr Ó Suird's dismissal by the board, where it had not been established that the dismissal was a proportionate response to the wrongdoing established by the board, was one based on the evidence that the Labour Court was entitled to come to.
Normally the appropriate order to make would be to set aside the Labour Court's decision and remit the case back to it to consider a suitable remedy, the Chief Justice said.
However, it would not be appropriate to do so in this case due to factors including the passage of time, and that Mr Ó Suird has been in situ as principal for over a year.
Arising out of its findings, the Supreme Court also overturned several High Court orders in Mr Ó Suird's favour, including that all arrears of pay and entitlements he was due, be paid to him.
Those sums must now be repaid to the board.
The court also set aside Mr Justice Cregan's ruling about Mr Ó Suird's legal costs, including an order that the costs should be paid by the board on the 'practitioner-client' basis, which is a higher scale than the normal legal fees.
The dispute arose after Mr Ó Suird was put on administrative leave in 2012 following a complaint that he had pulled a seated first-class student by the jumper to remonstrate with the boy.
The boy's parents accepted his apology, but other parents made complaints that led to his suspension in 2013 and his dismissal in 2015.
The HSE found in 2012 that the matter did not involve the physical abuse of a child and told the school to investigate the matter itself.
Following that the board then began to investigate claims that Mr Ó Suird, who founded the school in 2002, had inflated school enrolment figures to the Deparment of Education in 2009.
That resulted in a disciplinary process, which ultimately resulted in his dismissal.
In his judgement, Mr Justice Cregan had strongly criticised the board's treatment of Mr Ó Suird and said that he had suffered a terrible injustice.
He said that when the matter was before various forums the board had engaged in an "unprincipled attempt to blacken his name", the judge said.
It was clear, the judge said, that the board had "an animus" against Mr Ó Suird and had sought to destroy his reputation.
The board has denied all allegations of wrongdoing made against it.
