Appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court should be confined to appeals on a point of law. The High Court does not have jurisdiction to substitute its own findings for that of the Labour Court.

What happened?

A school principal was unfairly dismissed and endured ‘terrible injustice’ over more than 11 years due to “disastrous and unreasonable misjudgements” by the school’s board of management. The dispute had been ongoing for approximately 13 years. In January 2012 Mr. Ó Súird was placed on administrative leave following an incident in a classroom. A disciplinary hearing was conducted between November 2014 and June 2015 and Mr. Ó Súird was ultimately dismissed with effect from 30 November 2015. Following the plaintiff’s dismissal, but prior to the conclusion of the employment law proceedings, the defendant appointed another individual as principal, on a permanent basis. The Labour Court (the LC) ordered reengagement, which was appealed to the High Court. The HC upheld the LC decision. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court where it was found that the LC erred in law in respect of an order to reinstate a school principal to the job he had been removed from a decade ago.

What happened in the WRC and in the Labour Court?

Mr. Ó Súird brought a complaint to the WRC in early 2016 and the AO decided that the dismissal was unfair, and that compensation would be an inadequate remedy. As such, the AO directed the reengagement of the principal as principal in the school with effect from 1 January 2018. The decision was appealed to the LC in 2018. The LC ultimately dismissed the appeal and found that the principal was unfairly dismissed and directed reengagement with effect from 1 September 2017.

What happened in the High Court? 

The Board of Management appealed this decision to the High Court (the HC) and an extensive judgment was handed down, dismissing the appeal by the Board of Management. The HC judge concluded that the LC had been in error in directing reengagement from September 2017, and instead initially directed reinstatement of the principal with effect from 30 January 2013, being the date on which it was considered the administrative leave should have ended. Following subsequent hearings in the HC, Cregan J. delivered a further judgment directing that the principal:

• be put back on the payroll with effect from 1 August 2023;
• be deemed to be reengaged as principal with effect from 30 November 2015 (being the date of dismissal) and restored to his duties with effect from 4 August 2023;
• paid arrears in salary from 30 November 2015 and;
• have all previous entitlements restored from 30 November 2015.

The effect of the HC decision was to require the school, with effect from August 2023, to accept the respondent as principal in a role he had not fulfilled for more than a decade, and where there was a principal in place for more than seven years.

What happened in the Supreme Court?

The Board of Management appealed to the Supreme Court on points of law including that the LC had erred in its findings. It was agreed by the Court that the LC did not give proper consideration to the exceptional nature of the remedy of reinstatement. The Supreme Court noted that the distinction between reengagement and reinstatement was “somewhat blurred” in this case. The WRC, the LC and (ultimately) the HC all ordered reengagement in the position of principal and fixed the point of such reengagement at a point in the past so as to give rise to an obligation to pay arrears. Furthermore, the Court stated that “The only legal issues before the High Court on the appeal on a point of law in this regard, was whether the finding of the Labour Court upholding the Adjudication Officer, that the dismissal was unfair because it was disproportionate to the wrongdoing, was one for which there was evidence.” In addressing this question, the Supreme Court further noted that the HC went “much further and substituted not only its own remedy, but its own reading of the evidence. This was significantly outside the jurisdiction of the High Court in hearing an appeal on a point of law.”

The Board of Management asserted a loss of trust and confidence in the principal, and the Supreme Court noted that there may be factions of parents, teachers and others opposed to the principal's return. The practicability of an order for reinstatement required some assessment of how it was anticipated the school would work. The Supreme Court indicated its reluctance in concluding that it could not interfere with the HC order notwithstanding the fact that it had identified the error of law in the approach of the LC. As such, it was held that the LC order of reengagement should remain in place. The matter was not remitted to the LC for reconsideration as the proceedings had been in being for an inordinate and unconscionable amount of time.

Appeals to the HC and Supreme Court should be confined to appeals on a point of law. The HC does not have jurisdiction to substitute its own findings for that of the LC.

The grant of an exceptional remedy requires a clear and balanced explanation detailing precisely why a relief which is out of the ordinary is being granted in a particular case. In assessing whether an order of reinstatement or reengagement is practicable in the circumstances, a consideration of whether that reengagement will displace an innocent person who has been engaged to fill the role may be relevant.