In the course of the budget Mr Netto, the chairman of the Social Services Agency made the following statement, ‘all the complaints that were made before of during 2006 regarding alleged abuses at the Giraldi Home were properly investigated and appropriate action was taken’.
This statement is in fact contradicted by the evidence before the Industrial Tribunal and the previous statements issued by the RGP.
Either Mr Netto knows something that no one else in the Agency does or else he is deliberating lying in parliament to cover the failure by the Agency.
Since he is politically responsible for the Agency we challenge Mr Netto to list the allegations made before or during 2006 which he claims have been properly investigated, by whom they were properly investigated and to say what was the appropriate action taken in each case and by whom and when all these investigations and action took place which no-one else appears to be aware of or has ever mentioned before.
Perhaps whilst he is about it he can explain if the following allegations made in June 2005 by a member of the staff and reported to the then Chief Executive Officer of the Agency since gone to the UK and no longer contactable was investigated by her or anyone lese either then or since. The allegation in question is as follows:
That an employee of the Agency arrived at 7 a.m. at one of the flats, apparently drunk. It is alleged that he first went to sleep in the sitting room. It is said that afterwards a female service user resident in the flat, was dragged out of her bed so that the employee could go to sleep in it. It was also said that the employees who helped this individual at the same time disposed of an unspecified amount of cocaine by flushing it down the toilet. The report names all the persons who witnessed the incident and expresses surprise at the fact that no action whatsoever was taken and everyone continued at work as if nothing had happened.
The statement contains these and other allegations which were simply ignored by the CEO who instead questioned the procedure by which the information was obtained, when it was clearly stated that it was volunteered by an employee who signed it, who was concerned at the risk to which service users were being exposed.
In the report by the same employee, by way of another example mentioned, a different service user and a different employee in another flat. In this case the employee on night duty left his place of work at 11 p.m. and did not return until the following morning at 6 a.m.
The service user in this incident was left unattended locked in his bedroom, excited and banging on the door. The person making the report says he was new to the job and did not know how to deal with the situation but having reported the matter the following day no action was taken.
On another instance the service users mentioned in the cocaine incident asked the writer of the report to leave one of the flats as he was going to be visited by a female friend who had no connection with the Agency. The writer says no report was made of this because it was well known that the person concerned was allowed to do as he pleased by the senior in charge who was his partner and that in fact anyone reporting misconduct (whistle blowing, for Mr Netto’s benefit since he claims there is no such thing) risked being victimised.
The same individual permitting such incidents to happen without corrective action is accused of abusing the management position held by giving preferential treatment to her sister as a member of her staff over others. A change of work pattern was introduced according to the person making the report to benefit some service users at the expense of others notwithstanding the fact that some employees benefited at the expense of others notwithstanding that it had a detrimental effect on the service user who had developed a bond with the person previously dealing with him.
The report goes on to give other examples and ends by saying the list is not exhaustive and that she is willing to provide further information.
The report in giving details and examples describes these as pointers to the bullying, harassment and malpractices in the Agency.
This report was one of a bundle brought to the notice of the CEO and the Agency in June 2005 about which no action was taken whatsoever to investigate the accuracy of the information provided. None of the persons mentioned were approached to establish the facts. We challenge Mr Netto to demonstrate otherwise, if the information that is contained in this report is not accurate. This is information that would have been made public during the course of the Tribunal if the Government had not conducted its defence of the complaint in a manner that ensured that the hearing never took place first by spurious arguments to delay the holding of the hearing and finally by saying it was not able to prove that the reason for the dismissal was that Joanna Hernandez could not do her job and not that she brought to light allegations made by others, that the Agency preferred not to have investigated.
http://www.gslp.gi/Press_Release/topic.php?id=171
Home 
