On Maundy Thursday Miss Joanna Hernandez received a letter from the Social Service Agency lawyers stating that they were not satisfied with the reply given to a request for further and better particulars presented by the Agency at the last hearing of the Industrial Tribunal.
The Agency wanted to be given details of the allegation of abuse at the Agency to which Miss Hernandez had referred. They wanted the date when they were made, and also wanted to know who Miss Hernandez thought was responsible in the management or otherwise for wanting to get rid of her, for having raised these allegations of abuse.
They were told during the hearing that the information had been in their possession since June 2005 and indeed had been included by the Attorney General in the evidence tabled at the Tribunal in June 2006. As regards the person responsible, they were told that Mrs Yvette Del Agua had been made aware of these allegations and was considered by Miss Hernandez responsible for the decision to dismiss her.
The lawyers then asked for this to be confirmed in writing, which has been done.
It is in response to this written confirmation that they say they are not satisfied with the information as to who was responsible for the dismissal decision and want further particulars.
Of course, Miss Hernandez does not have the evidence as to how the decision to dismiss her was arrived at or by whom, because the Agency has so far not provided this.
However, given that Mrs Yvette Del Agua was fully informed of what was alleged to be going on, it is a reasonable assumption, on the part of Miss Hernandez, to conclude that she approved the dismissal.
The Agency’s letter states they will raise this again at the next hearing due on 13 April, when they are supposed to be presenting their witnesses.
This latest move is seen by the Claimant as another attempt at delaying tactics, just like with the previous absurd argument that having worked 1 year and 2 days Miss Hernandez had not completed 52 weeks employment because her first day at work was a Monday and not a Sunday. This strategy delayed the hearing by over a year.
Home 
