Allegations regarding treatment of disabled persons will have to be investigated says Opposition The Opposition notes that there has been renewed comment in the media regarding the allegations of the treatment of persons with disability whilst in the care of the Social Services Agency.
These issues have resurfaced periodically on a number of occasions but have been there since before 2005.
In 2005 they were brought to the attention of the Agency by a senior employee whose employment contract was subsequently terminated, and has been the subject of a complaint of unfair dismissal since this happened two years ago.
In the intervening two years, the Agency engaged private legal representatives, not to defend itself against the complaint of unfair dismissal, but to seek to prevent the case from being heard. They argued that employees of the Agency were not deemed to have worked for 52 weeks unless the first week of employment commenced on a Sunday and the last week of employment ended on a Saturday.
In this way they were seeking to overturn the protection over one year of employment that was intended when the legislation was introduced into the Gibraltar Parliament in 1975. They were also seeking to overturn the interpretation that was given to it in the intervening 32 years, namely that a working week is a period of seven consecutive days irrespective of whether the first day of the week is a Sunday or any other day.
Having lost the argument in the tribunal, the Agency then appealed to the Supreme Court but could produce no case or authority supporting their interpretation of the law. They then lost the case, as was to be expected, and spent further public funds in appealing to the Court of Appeal, where they lost again.
The effort, time and money spent by the Agency on preventing the claim for unfair dismissal being heard, makes no sense unless they are not convinced of the legitimacy of the decision that they took initially and they do not particularly want the evidence in support of the complainant to be heard, in what is, and has to be, a public hearing.
The statements made by witnesses in support of the claimant contained references to the allegations about the state of affairs in the Agency, which the claimant sort to improve and complained about to senior management and the Agency Board.
All these statements, which have been mentioned in press reports, will be made in public and under oath, and have been in possession of the Agency since last December as required by the Tribunal rules, given that the hearing was expected to have started at the beginning of this year.
The substantive hearing is now expected to take place in January of next year, and on Wednesday of next week there is a preliminary hearing to consider a request by the claimant for witnesses to be subpoenaed on the basis that they have not come forward voluntarily, in most cases because they work for the Government, but they nonetheless have been in a position to materially contribute to establish the truth of the circumstances surrounding the decision to dismiss the claimant in 2005.
The move by the Agency to oppose the calling of these witnesses begs the question as to why it is that the Agency seems to be so keen in the first instance to stop the case being heard, and in the second instance to stop the participation of persons who could help in getting at the truth.
What is obvious is that sooner or later the hearing will have to take place, the witnesses who have made statements will have to be heard, and the matter will have to be investigated.
http://www.gslp.gi/Press_Release/topic.php?id=82 
Home 
