The PDP understands that this morning at the outset of the hearing of the Joanna Hernandez Industrial Tribunal case against the Social Services department the Government conceded that she had been unfairly dismissed. The Tribunal will now need to consider the issue of compensation. The PDP also understands that the concession was made by Government at the start of the case with no need to hear any of the witnesses that had been asked to attend. If that is what has transpired it raises very serious issues as to the conduct of this litigation by the Government.
First why has the Government insisted on contesting every single procedural issue in this litigation wasting tens of thousands of pounds only to then collapse on the main issue of whether Ms Hernandez was unfairly dismissed. The PDP understands that the dismissal occurred in November 2005. The applicant and her family have been put through unnecessary stress and delay of two and a half years completely unnecessarily.
Secondly why has tax-payer’s money been wasted in defending a case which was indefensible. Surely Government must have made its own internal enquiries to establish whether it could succeed or not on the issue of unfair dismissal months ago. It will be recalled that the Government unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court and then the Court of Appeal on a procedural point that was deemed to be without merit and had nothing to do with whether Ms Hernandez had actually been dismissed or not. The Government must explain how much money has been spent in defending this case so far and what the compensation will be. It would be incomprehensible if the legal fees spent are higher than the compensation paid to Ms Hernandez. The statement today by the Social Services Agency blames its decision on the fact that it has been unable to obtain the attendance of the then Chief Executive of the Social Services Agency to give evidence. But the Government must surely have taken statements from Ms Tosso over the last two and a half years which it could have put forward or it could have sought adjournments to obtain her attendance. Additionally it must be assumed that other officials must have been aware of the case and could have given evidence on this case. The Agency’s excuse for collapsing now just simply raises more questions than answers.
Thirdly the admission by Government neatly circumvents the need for the Tribunal to hear evidence from witnesses who were apparently going to discuss issues in relation to the working practices of the Dr Giraldi Home and the treatment of certain patients. Concerns have been expressed by families of resident several times and the Government needs to assure the public that its actions are not intended to silence those who seek to set out their views on matters that are relevant to the running of that home.
The PDP has previously called for an enquiry into these allegations or for Government to assure the public that it will or has properly investigated these matters. The need for such assurances and investigations has increased because of the way this case has been handled.
http://www.gibnews.net/cgi-bin/gn_view.pl/?PDPG080409_2.xml
Home 
