gibfocus - 11th April 2008
(2008-04-11 17:55:00 )
The Government is now clutching at straws and avoiding answering the key questions raised by the collapse of its defence in the Joanna Hernandez case, the PDP has said this afternoon.
"Having failed to put up any evidence to contradict the inevitable finding that Ms Hernandez was unfairly dismissed the Government has now moved into the public arena to inexplicably try to convince the public that it still maintains the view that Ms Hernandez was fairly dismissed," said a spokesperson for the PDP. "The time for that has now passed. In offering no evidence the Government’s case has collapsed and Ms Hernandez is entitled to her finding of unfair dismissal. It is undignified for the Government to try to convince the public that black is white. The Government should abandon these efforts immediately. If it really thinks it had a defence the Government should have argued its case at the Tribunal. The termination letter of October 2005 has now been published. In it the language used by Ms Tosso suggests that more than one person was involved in the decision-making process or in the review of Ms Hernandez’s contract. Why else would Ms Tosso say in her letter
“I am writing to inform you that your performance in your position as Manager of Dr Giraldi has been reviewed and it is the conclusion of the Social Services Agency that you have failed to meet the required standard.”
"Ms Tosso does not say that she has decided but that “it is the conclusion of the Social Services Agency” that the employment should be terminated. Her letter implies a discussion and review within the Agency level with others. If that is the case more people would have been able to give evidence. Even if that is not the case presumably Ms Tosso as Chief Executive made written reports and discussed her decisions or would explain them to the Agency at Board level. It would be unprecedented for a head of department not to discuss her actions or to account subsequently for them. Ms Hernandez did not work alone at the Dr Giraldi Home. Presumably the Agency has also spoken to other employees to see what they thought of Ms Hernandez’s management of the Home. All of that suggests that if the Government really had a defence some other Agency official could have given evidence in that respect.
"Questions of the cost to the tax-payer of this case have also been pointedly avoided by Government. The public are entitled to know the cost of this matter and why the case was not settled earlier to ensure that public monies were not wasted. It would be indefensible if the total costs of this case were to far outweigh the compensation package that must now also be paid. It is an inappropriate use of public money and Government’s resources to handle cases in this way. The Government should not avoid these questions.
"Finally the Government should do more to reassure the families of residents that the Dr Giraldi Home is well-run and resourced and has good working practices in place. If it still resists an enquiry into the running of the home, even though this has been requested by families, it should at least meet families to allay those concerns and assure them that matters have been looked into and addressed and would be fully investigated in future should any matter arise."
http://www.gibfocus.gi/details_headlines.php?id=2247
Home 
