The Supreme Court has upheld an order that a school principal be reengaged from 1 September 2017 after finding his dismissal unfair, but ruled that a High Court judge went beyond the limits of a point-of-law appeal by moving the date back to his dismissal in 2015.
The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice O’Donnell on 31 July 2024, concerned Gaelscoil Moshíológ and its board of management. The principal had been dismissed over overstated enrolment figures submitted to the Department of Education for the 2009/10 school year. The Court described the falsification of enrolment records as serious misconduct. The principal admitted that at least nine pupils who did not attend had been included, while disputing the board’s characterization of the scale and circumstances. The Court noted that the principal did not personally benefit from an increased salary allowance.
The Labour Court had found the dismissal disproportionate, taking account of evidence that members of the board at the time knew of or supported the enrolment practice, evidence that it occurred elsewhere, and the principal’s admission. The Supreme Court held that the Labour Court was entitled to find that dismissal had not been shown to be a proportionate response. It rejected the board’s argument that the statutory unfair dismissal test did not require consideration of the reasonable employer’s response.
The Supreme Court said a High Court appeal under section 46 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 is not a rehearing. The High Court had exceeded that jurisdiction by substituting its own assessment of evidence and changing the remedy. The Labour Court’s reengagement order, effective from 1 September 2017, therefore remains in place. The Court said the Labour Court had failed to properly consider whether reengagement as principal was practicable, including the effect on the school and the principal appointed in 2016. In the ordinary course that error would have led to the remedy being reconsidered, but the Court left the order standing because of the time elapsed and subsequent changes at the school.
The principal must repay arrears paid under the High Court order for the period from 30 November 2015 to 1 September 2017. The Supreme Court also set aside the High Court’s award of costs on a legal practitioner and client basis, replacing it with costs on a party and party basis. It ruled that the High Court should have granted a limited stay while an application for leave to appeal was considered. The parties may make submissions on the costs of the Supreme Court appeal.