Medical journal editor takes High Court case alleging demotion without consultation

Judge issues restraining order to prevent plaintiff from being demoted or downgraded

The plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the defendants in June saying she would be making a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. Photograph: Getty Images
The plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the defendants in June saying she would be making a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission. Photograph: Getty Images

A woman who claims the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland (RAMI) has failed to restore her to her position of managing editor of its medical science journal has brought High Court proceedings seeking her reinstatement.

Helen Moore (65) claims the RAMI acted in breach of an agreement to restore her to her position after she says she was purportedly demoted without consultation to editorial assistant in the Irish Journal of Medical Science in January 2022.

On Tuesday, Mr Justice Brian Cregan granted Ercus Stewart SC, for Ms Moore, an injunction restraining the RAMI and the Irish Journal of Medical Science from demoting or downgrading her. The application was made with only the Moore side represented (ex parte) and the judge said the matter could return before the court on Thursday.

In an affidavit, Ms Moore said she started working for the RAMI in 1999 as office manager and in 2008 became managing editor of the journal.

READ SOME MORE

Following her purported demotion in 2022 she submitted a formal grievance procedure complaining about matters including the inappropriate manner in which decisions affecting her employment had been made and communicated to her and others. She also claimed there had been a gross underpayment for her role.

Following an independent investigation, she was supplied with an extract of the investigator’s conclusions which stated the change in her role had been made without adequate communication or consultation. It also said it should be acknowledged it was now accepted that this was not appropriate.

Ms Moore said the extract set out how badly she was treated and she genuinely hoped the matter would be rectified.

However, despite an agreement in January of last year to restore her to her position as managing editor, she said the defendants failed to implement it.

Further attempts were made through her solicitors to get confirmation from the defendants that she was to be restored to her position and she also requested a copy of the full report of the grievance-procedure investigator.

Her solicitors wrote to the defendants in June saying she would now be making a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) seeking, among other things, reinstatement as managing editor, recognition of and redress for alleged bullying, harassment and discriminatory treatment and confirmation that she was entitled to continue working until she was 70.

She said the defendants refused to allow the claims made under the Industrial Relations Act to be dealt with by the WRC.

Ms Moore said the decision to demote her was a breach of fair procedures and natural justice and in breach of the January 2024 agreement. The demotion was the imposition of a sanction, without fair procedures, which humiliated her, she said. “I say it will do irreparable harm to my reputation if not reversed”, she said.