A deputy chief executive officer of the St Michael's House disability services provider in Dublin conceded yesterday that the manner in which she dealt with an employee could have been perceived as threatening.
Patricia Doherty was giving evidence to the Employment Appeals Tribunal in a constructive dismissal case brought against St Michael's House.
Dr Mark Harrold, a clinical psychologist, alleges that a "culture of bullying" existed at St Michael's House and that a campaign of bullying was orchestrated against him until his resignation in 2004.
He claims that "groundless" allegations were made against him by management after he raised concerns about the treatment of a former patient, Peter McKenna (60). Mr McKenna, who had Down syndrome and Alzheimer's, was transferred from St Michael's House to the Leas Cross nursing home in October 2001 and died two weeks later.
Dr Harrold wrote to the St Michael's board outlining his concerns about alleged bullying and about Mr McKenna. A three-member committee was appointed to hear his grievances, Ms Doherty said.
Michael Howard for Dr Harrold said his client felt two of the three were "partial" and he wanted an independent committee. He asked Ms Doherty whether "a person who was the subject of an alleged complaint should investigate the complaint".
She answered: "No".
She denied a letter sent to Dr Harrold, outlining eight alleged acts of misconduct, was in response to his having written to the Minister for Health seeking an independent inquiry into his concerns. Citing her statement in her letter that failure to co-operate with the committee would result in disciplinary action, Mr Howard asked: "Would [ an employee] find it a threat?"
"I think any employee would, yes," said Ms Doherty.
She outlined alleged complaints against Dr Harrold that gave rise for concern.
They related to claims of conflicts of interest in his campaigning role for parents of children with intellectual disabilities, aspects of his general election campaign in 2002 and his attitude towards training people from outside St Michael's House
Mr Howard asked Ms Doherty if she formally recorded the alleged complaints and if she made efforts to speak to him before sending the letter. She said she didn't need to. Mr Howard said she "didn't take a scintilla of a step to inquire into the veracity" of the alleged incidents. Later she said: "I accept there is a potential unfairness" in having not recorded the alleged complaints. Throughout her evidence Ms Doherty described the events as "extraordinary" and "extreme".
The case continues.
