A JUDGE HAS made orders directing that a Co Wexford Gaeilscoil principal, who was found by the WRC and the Labour Court and the High Court to have been unfairly dismissed, be allowed return to his job.

In a ruling today, Mr Justice Brian Cregan confirmed an earlier order that Mr Aodhagan Ó Suird is to be re-engaged as head teacher of Gaelscoil Moshíológ in Gorey, Co Wexford, over a decade after he was suspended and then fired from his role.

In July, Mr Justice Cregan dismissed the school’s board of management’s appeal from the Labour Court that Mr O’Suird, represented by Padraic Lyons SC, Hugh McDowell Bl, and solicitor Robert Dore, against a finding that their client had been unfairly dismissed.

The judge said that Mr Ó Suird had suffered a terrible injustice due to unreasonable and misjudgements by board, who he added had a “vendetta” against the principal.

In its decision, the Labour court upheld a finding by the WRC that Mr Ó Suird had been wrongly fired by the board.

The court’s decision had created an issue, as the school’s board had appointed Ms Carol Scott as principal in 2016.

However according to lawyers for the Minister for Education, which had been joined as a party to the case in the wake of his initial judgement, the school cannot have two principals.

Today, when the judge handed down a follow up judgement outlining his final orders in the case, he was told that following out of court discussions between the Minister, represented by Mark Finan Bl and Ms Scott, a mutually acceptable arrangement had been reached between those parties.

No details of the agreement were given in open court, which is understood to be confidential.

The judge, when the matter had previously been before him, had encouraged the parties to try to find an accommodation regarding Ms Scott’s position.

In his judgement he said that he had “considerable sympathy” for Ms Scott who was appointed in 2016.

He said that she should not have been appointed to the position on a permanent basis while Mr Ó Suird’s challenge against his dismissal was “on-going”.

She had been a teacher in the school before she was appointed, and was aware of Mr Ó Suird’s legal challenges, and the decisions of the WRC, Labour Court and indeed the High Court.

She knew therefore that this day, where Mr Ó Suird might be reinstated may come, the judge added.

The situation that resulted in two principals was not Mr Ó Suird’s fault, the judge said, but was the fault of the school’s board.

In his decision, the judge confirmed that he was dismissing the school board’s appeal against the Labour Court’s earlier decision that Mr Ó Suird was unfairly dismissed and said that he be “reengaged as principal from Friday 4 August”.

He also ruled that all arrears of pay and entitlements due to Mr Ó Suird be paid to him.

The judge also ruled that the board pay Mr Ó Suird legal costs on the ‘practitioner-client’ basis, which is a higher scale than the normal legal fees.

The judge also declined to place a stay on his order that Mr Ó Suird be re-engaged by the school’s board pending an appeal.

While there is no automatic right of appeal from the court’s decision, the board has indicated that it will seek to appeal the judgement to the Supreme Court.

The judge’s final orders arose out of his decision last month to uphold findings by the Labour Court that Mr Ó Suird had been unfairly dismissed and should be re-engaged as the school’s principal.

He 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 lead to his suspension in May 2013 and his dismissal in November 2015.

The HSE found in November 2012 that the matter did not involve the physical abuse of a child and told the school to investigate the matter itself.

The judge said that after the board then began investigating claims that Mr Ó Suird had inflated school enrolment figures to the Dept of Education in 2009.

That resulted in a disciplinary process against Mr Ó Suird that ultimately resulted in his dismissal in 2015.

In his decision Mr Justice Cregan said essentially the case was not one about child protection but was about enrolment figures submitted to the Department of Education 14 years ago.

The school board’s chairperson Ms Melanie Ni Dhuinn had alleged these were fraudulent without any basis for doing so, the judge said.

He added that Mr Ó Suird had said that what he did with figures was with the board’s consent and approval and that legislation governing such figures was a grey area.

The judge said that both statements were “so true”.

In the disciplinary proceedings against Mr Ó Suird the judge said the board had “deliberately exaggerated” charges against him, made “unfounded allegations of fraud” against him, had withheld information from him, and ignored his evidence.

Those allegations were “endlessly recycled” by the WRC, the Labour Court, and the High Court, 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.

“That in itself should give the board pause for thought.”

The board, he added, had now had three bites of the cherry.

It had failed in three different forums, the judge said.

It now wishes to have “a fourth bite,” by seeking to bring an appeal against the finding of unfair dismissal before the Supreme Court.

It should not “waste further taxpayers’ money on legal battles,” he said.

“It is well past time, in my view, for the vendetta to come to an end. It is time for the board to accept that it unfairly dismissed Mr Ó Suird and seek to make amends,” the judge added.

The judge said Mr Ó Suird is entitled to resume his professional life and career.

The education of children, the judge said, is “almost a sacred duty”.

“The school’s board has a responsibility for the education of young children.

“As such it has a responsibility to inculcate values such as justice, fairness and respect for the rule of law,” said the judge.

“It was time for the board to reflect that three independent tribunals had found that their actions were unfair, unlawful, and it needs to make its peace with Mr Ó Suird.”