A High Court judge has ruled that Aodhagán Ó Suird suffered a “terrible injustice” when ousted from his position as principal of Gaelscoil Moshíológ in Gorey over 11 years ago – describing the “injustice” as “a festering wound in a school and in a small community such as Gorey”.
The blistering ruling from Judge Brian Cregan in the unfair dismissals case, described Mr Ó Suird’s “odyssey” as a “shocking story” – where the reputation of the principal and the young school in Gorey was damaged.
Mr Ó Suird should be reinstated to his position, with all his salary and pension entitlements, from January 2013, when his administrative leave should have ended, the judge said.
Mr Justice Cregan said that Mr Ó Suird’s name should “be cleared, [and] his reputation restored”.
He was “entitled to walk back through the front gates of the school with his head held high and to resume the position of which he was so wrongfully deprived 11 years ago,” he ruled.
“This case is a shocking story of a terrible injustice done to Mr. Ó Suird,” he wrote.
“It resulted in his odyssey through the school disciplinary process, the unfair dismissal process, and the legal system in order to clear his name and to be reinstated as principal of the school he helped to establish,” the High Court judge said.
Aodhagán Ó Suird had helped to found the school in Gorey 2002. The High Court judge ruled that while the board of management of the school “might have thought they were doing the right thing, objectively they became motivated by an animus against Mr. O’Suird and were determined that he would never again serve as principal”.
“Mr. O’Suird has had to endure this injustice for over eleven and a half years – all because of the unreasonable actions of Ms. Ní Dhuinn, the chairperson of the board of management, and other members of the board of management, of the school in question,” Mr Justice Cregan wrote.
He said that the Board of Management had taken “draconian” measures against the school principal and that they had then “suppressed and concealed enormously significant evidence in relation to this matter.”
“Ms. Ni Dhuinn was made chairperson of the Board of Management in December 2011. Within weeks she had destroyed all the work done by her predecessors. It is a shocking legacy,” Justice Cregan found.
Mr Justice Cregan’s 140 page ruling was handed down at the High Court last Friday. The Court had heard an appeal by the board of management of the school against a Labour Court ruling in Mr Ó Suird’s favour in June 2022.
THE INCIDENT IN 2012
In his affidavit for the case, Mr Ó Suird related what had happened in an incident in the classroom in 2012.
“On January 11, 2012, an incident occurred while I was teaching first class in the school. I disciplined a pupil (who I shall refer to as [pupil A]) in front of the class, who then returned to his seat and deliberately stamped his feet while he did so. I lost my temper, approached [pupil A], banged his table with my fist and physically pulled him towards me by his jumper in order to remonstrate with him. What I did was entirely wrong, and I feel great shame in relation to it to this day. The incident passed relatively quickly but I cannot excuse my actions in any way. It was extremely stupid and represented an unacceptable failing on my part.
“The following day, I learned that parents in the school were aware of the incident. [Pupil A’s parents] approached me and I discussed the incident with them in a fully open and transparent way.”
An entirely new board of management had been appointed at Gaelscoil Moshíológ in November 2011 – and Dr. Melanie Ní Dhuinn had been elected chairperson in December. a month later.
“On January 14, 2012, I discussed the incident with Ms. Ní Dhuinn by telephone and explained what had occurred,” Mr Ó Suird said. “I suggested that I could meet the parents of the class as a group but Ms. Ní Dhuinn instructed me not to. At that time I felt Ms. Ní Dhuinn was quite supportive of me.”
On January 16, Mr Ó Suird met with the parents of Pupil A: “In broad terms they were satisfied with the meeting and that matters had been properly resolved,” he said. “They accepted my apology and they were happy that [pupil A] had not been hurt or injured during the incident. They considered it to be a minor incident.”
Mr Justice Cregan stated that in his view, “this evidence given by Mr O’Suird is clear and persuasive. He sets out the facts as they occurred and it is clear that he accepts that what he did was ‘entirely wrong’, that he feels ‘great shame in relation to it to this day’ and that it ‘represented an unacceptable failing’ on his part. He does not seek to minimise his actions nor does he seek to evade responsibility in any way. More importantly, no-one has sought to challenge the accuracy of his account.”
The court was told that a “small number of other parents” had also made complaints to the board of management about the incident – “apparently based on what their children had told them”.
As a result of those actions, Mr. O’Suird was told by Ms. Ní Dhuinn to stay away from the school which was seen as him being “de facto suspended” from his position as principal of the school.
The board of management then held an emergency meeting, and, on January 26th decided to place Mr O’Suird on “administrative leave”.
“In effect therefore, the board of management effectively placed Mr O’Suird on administrative leave without hearing his side of the story,” Mr Justice Cregan ruled.
“Putting a principal on administrative leave is, in substance, the same as suspending a principal. It is an enormously draconian step to take. However, to make matters worse, Ms Ní Dhuinn and, subsequently, the board of management then suppressed and concealed enormously significant evidence in relation to this matter an issue to which I will now turn.”
THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
Mr Justice Cregan noted that, on the day before the board of management took the decision to place Mr Ó Suird on administrative leave, Mr. Garrett Fitzpatrick, a solicitor for the parents of pupil A, wrote to Ms. Ni Dhuinn.
The solicitor stated that pupil A’s parent “were satisfied with Mr. Sword’s response, and indeed, proposals” and that they “regarded the particular incident as minor in the general scheme of things and were satisfied with Mr. Swords handling of the issue. They regarded the incident as a one off and the matter has been dealt with fully to their satisfaction”.
Mr Justice Cregan’s said that Ms Ní Dhuinn as chairperson of the board of management, “appears to have ignored this letter altogether” adding that if a copy of this letter had “been given to Mr. O’Suird at this time, and if the board of management had heard Mr. O’Suird’s side of the story, it is possible that it would not have placed him on administrative leave.”
The judge said that he agreed with counsel for Mr Ó Suird who described this non-disclosure as a “deliberate suppression and concealment of evidence.”
“The deliberate suppression and concealment of this important evidence was unreasonable and entirely indefensible,” he stated. “I would have thought, once the solicitors for the parents of Pupil A had written to Ms Ni Dhuinn on January 25, 2012 to say that, in their view, it was a minor matter, that should have been the end of the matter. If Ms Ni Dhuinn and the board of management had acted with a modicum of common sense, they would have prepared their own internal investigation report, presented it to the board of management and perhaps the matter could have been left at that.”
It was revealed in court that neither Ms Ni Dhuinn nor anyone from the board of management replied to the letter sent by the parents of pupil A.
More than a year later, on February 26, 2013, the solicitors for Pupil A’s parents wrote for a second time indicating that they had not received a response and enclosing a copy of their initial letter.
The parents of Pupil A were “at a loss to understand how no response to our letter was forthcoming from the board and in particular no response to our request for copies of the complaints” the letter said.
They were also “astonished, given the allegations made and the subsequent complaints that you have not invited input from our clients in relation to the incident involving [pupil A]. Our clients remain available to you should you wish to speak with them.”
INCIDENT REFERRED TO HSE BY MS Ní DHUINN
Despite the efforts of Pupil A’s parents, the school did not respond but instead Ms Ní Dhuinn referred the incident to the HSE in late January 2012.
The court heard that on October 24, 2012, the HSE wrote to Ms Ní Dhuinn with its findings. “An incident did occur, however the incident cannot be said to have constituted physical abuse of a child,” the HSE wrote.
“In the light of this and as discussed, the HSE will now be writing to the school board of management requesting that a comprehensive and thorough investigation of the incident be completed with a view to ensuring prevention of such incidents.”
The HSE also wrote directly to Mr O’Suird on the matter.
Ms Ní Dhuinn commenced the investigation in that very month, as suggested by the HSE, and wrote to Mr. Ö Suird to tell him his “administrative leave” was extended until January 31, 2013,
“However, extraordinarily, this investigation was never completed,” said Mr Justice Cregan. “It beggars belief that Ms. Ni Dhuinn never completed her investigation into this incident — first, given that she regarded it with such seriousness that it justified the immediate suspension of the principal and the complaint to the HSE and, secondly, that the HSE specifically requested the school to carry out such an investigation.
“The failure to carry out such an investigation, to prepare a comprehensive report on the matter and to present it to the disciplinary panel was an unacceptable lapse by Ms. Ni Dhuinn for which she is solely and exclusively responsible,” he said.
ENROLMENT FIGURES
Mr Justice Cregan then noted that a new controversy arose which was what ultimately led to Mr Ó Suird being dismissed from his role as principal.
He said that Ms Ní Dhuinn had heard “a number of concerns…about enrolment figures in the school and the overstatement of numbers in returns to the Department of Education” from another teacher at the school, a Ms Ni Shuilleabhain.
The board of management, through its solicitors, then informed Mr O’Suird that they had decided to investigate additional issues in relation to his role as principal of the school.
The Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) was informed on March 13, 2013 that:
“In addition to the child protection issues which gave rise to the referral last year to the HSE, serious issues of concern with regard to the administration of the school accounts and compliance with DES requirements concerning the management of the school have recently come to light which require to be fully investigated. The chairperson is aware of the urgency of this situation. She has no desire to keep your client on administrative leave indefinitely. The chairperson will be in a position to refer her concerns to the board of management for investigation once the details of the issues of concern surrounding the administration of accounts have been finalised. The principal will remain on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.”
Mr Justice Cregan said that it was “clear therefore from this letter that instead of deciding to complete the investigation into the single child incident of January 2012, Ms. Ni Dhuinn decided to investigate a whole range of new issues.”
“It is impossible to see on what basis Mr O’ Suird should have had his ‘administrative leave’ continued indefinitely throughout this time. As was set out above, the school never progressed its investigation into the single child incident of January 2012 and it is clear from January 2013 that Ms. Ni Dhuinn was investigating other matters,” he said.
At a subsequent disciplinary hearing in November 2014, Mr Ó Suird stated categorically that, whilst he had accepted that there might have been some over-statement of enrolment figures to the Department of Education, this was at all times done for the benefit of the school and with the full knowledge, consent, approval and encouragement of the board of management.
Mr Justice Cregan found that, “the board was aware in each and every year – and in particular in 2009 – that there might be a slight exaggeration of the enrolment figures. This was done in order to build the school, to progress the school, to increase the number of schoolteachers, for the benefit of the children of the area and to ensure that they all had a better education. It was motivated from first to last by a sense of idealism of a group of parents who were pioneers in their community establishing an inter-denominational gaelscoil.”
It was clear, the judge ruled, “from this and other evidence that the 12-18 pupils who were described as ‘non-existent’ were nothing of the sort. They were real pupils whose parents had properly sought to have them enrolled in the school and whom Mr. O’ Suird had properly enrolled in the school.
“One might have thought that, in the light of the overwhelming evidence which it had heard that the board would have concluded (i) that the previous board knew and approved Mr. O’ Suird’s actions and (ii) that it was a grey area and perhaps a written warning would have sufficed. Instead the board of management decided to dismiss Mr. O’ Suird.”
The school’s board of management wrote a letter of dismissal to Mr. Ó Suird on August 31, 2015.
The Workplace Relations Commission in 2018, and the Labour Court in 2021, found in Mr Ó Suird’s favour.
JUDGE’S SCATHING CRITICISM OF BOARD
In a scathing criticism of Ms Ní Dhuinn and the Board of Management, Mr Justice Cregan stated that: “the suggestion therefore that Mr O’Suird was plucking numbers out of thin air was false. The persons responsible for this debacle are Ms. Ni Dhuinn and the board of management. Almost every single decision they took leading to Mr. O’Suird’s dismissal was unreasonable; the decision by Ms. Ni Dhuinn not to complete the investigation into the single child incident by end January 2013 was unreasonable; her decision never to finish the single child investigation was unreasonable; her decision to keep Mr. O’Suird on administrative leave while she carried out her other investigations was unreasonable; her investigation into these other matters was a rush to judgment; her decision to make allegations against Mr. O’Suird in respect of eight other matters without a comprehensive report was unreasonable; her decision to let all these other allegations hang over him throughout the hearing was unreasonable and tainted the disciplinary hearing; her allegations of fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation were manifestly unreasonable; her refusal to interview any member of the previous Board in circumstances where Mr. O’Suird said that everything he did was done with their consent was manifestly unreasonable; her delay was unreasonable; the board’s decision to dismiss Mr. O’Suird was unreasonable; its concealment of evidence was unreasonable; its decision to appoint a new principal even though Mr. O’Suird had appealed to WRC was a blatant attempt to pre-empt the jurisdiction of the WRC, the Labour Court and the High Court and to set at nought certain remedies these bodies might order including reinstatement.”
He said that they had become motivated by an animus against Mr. O’Suird and were determined that he would never again serve as principal.
“While subjectively, Ms. Ni Dhuinn – and the board – might have thought they were doing the right thing, objectively they became motivated by an animus against Mr. O’Suird and were determined that he would never again serve as principal,” he said.
“Their disastrous and unreasonable misjudgements removed the leadership of the school and left it without its founding principal for a number of years; their misjudgements have now created a situation where the school might have two principals; their misjudgements have exposed the school to the significant costs involved in these proceedings; their actions have resulted in enormous damage to Mr. O’Suird’s reputation by making utterly unfounded allegations of fraud and dismissing him; their actions have also damaged the great progress the school had made between 2002 and 2012,” he said.
“Ms. Ni Dhuinn was made chairperson of the Board of Management in December 2011. Within weeks she had destroyed all the work done by her predecessors. It is a shocking legacy,” Justice Cregan concluded.
“An injustice such as this is a festering wound in a school and in a small community such as Gorey. It damages both the reputation of its principal, and the young school which was founded upon the highest of ideals to teach children through Irish, to teach Catholic and Protestant together (and indeed children of all other Christian denominations).”
“As a result of the misjudgements of Ms. Ni Dhuinn, the Board of Management and the Disciplinary Panel, this eleven year injustice has been allowed to fester for far too long. The least Mr. O’Suird can expect is that his name be cleared, his reputation restored, and that he is re-instated to his former position. Mr. O’Suird is entitled to walk back through the front gates of the school with his head held high and to resume the position of which he was so wrongfully deprived eleven years ago. The appeal is dismissed,” the High Court judge ruled.