The High Court has ordered a school’s board of management to restore Aodhagán Ó Suird as principal after dismissing the board’s appeal against the Labour Court’s unfair dismissal decision. It also ordered arrears of pay and benefits, awarded costs on a legal practitioner and client basis, and refused the board’s application to delay his return while it pursued a possible Supreme Court appeal.
In a second judgment delivered on 3 August 2023, Mr Justice Cregan interpreted the Labour Court’s re-engagement order as requiring Mr Ó Suird’s reinstatement as principal. The Labour Court had not specified whether re-engagement meant a return to his former role or another suitable post. The judge said appointing him only as a teacher while Ms Scott remained permanent principal would be unjust, and that a joint-principal arrangement was not possible under the Education Act 1998.
The court ordered that Mr Ó Suird be deemed re-engaged from his dismissal on 30 November 2015 and return to his duties as principal on 4 August 2023. The board must put him back on its payroll from 1 August 2023 and pay arrears from 30 November 2015 to 1 August 2023 by 15 September 2023. It must also restore his previous entitlements from the dismissal date to the date of the order.
The judge set aside the Labour Court’s direction that the period before re-engagement be treated as unpaid suspension. He said the Labour Court had erred in law and ordered salary and benefits to be paid without a break from 30 November 2015. He refused to remit that issue to the Labour Court, saying further proceedings would serve no practical purpose.
The board had sought a stay only on Mr Ó Suird’s return to work, not on payroll restoration, arrears or pension entitlements. The judge found the proposed appeal was not being brought in good faith and that its grounds had little substance. He also said the balance of justice favoured allowing Mr Ó Suird to return. The stay application was refused.
The court ordered the board to pay Mr Ó Suird’s High Court costs on a legal practitioner and client basis, to be taxed if the parties could not agree. The final orders also dismissed the board’s appeal and refused its request to remit the matter to the Labour Court.