Fisheries chief brands WRC report ‘reckless’
Findings ‘could jeopardise’ Garda investigation into IFI
THE CEO of Inland Fisheries Irelandhas criticised ‘reckless’ findings against him by the Workplace Relations Commission and warned they could ‘jeopardise’ a Garda investigation into the semi-State body.
Last month, the WRC ruled that IFI boss Francis O’Donnell ‘surreptitiously’ influenced a disciplinary process that led to the unfair sacking of director Pat Gorman, who had allowed his 13-yearold son to drive a governmentowned tractor on a public road at night.
It ruled IFI had acted inappropriately by suspending Mr Gorman, who worked for the organisation for 37 years, on foot of allegations in an anonymous letter, and had gone too far when it later sacked him when other sanctions were available.
The judgement noted Mr O’Donnell ‘sought to influence the investigation’ by seeking to speak off the record, a request the investigator declined.
Contacted by the Irish Daily Mail yesterday, Mr O’Donnell said: ‘I think the comments by the WRC were reckless about me.’
He said he sought to speak off the record to protect the ‘integrity’ of a Garda investigation.
‘If I referred to it, it could jeopardise the Garda investigation and they [those being investigated] could claim they were unfairly treated. Because it is an ongoing investigation I didn’t want to say,’ Mr O’Donnell said.
Mr Gorman was suspended on February 1, 2022 after an anonymous letter was sent to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine claiming he had been using an IFI tractor on his farm for over a decade. IFI immediately suspended Mr Gorman and requested the tractor be returned. Mr Gorman said he felt he was instructed to return the tractor that evening and asked his 13-year-old son, who is noted as being a ‘very capable driver’, to drive the tractor on a public road. Mr Gorman drove behind the vehicle, accompanying his son back to IFI offices. He was sacked eight months after his suspension following an investigation.
In March last year, The Irish Mail on Sunday revealed gardaí were investigating allegations that Mr Gorman used IFI employees and vehicles for private contract work for which he was personally paid.
An internal investigation by IFI into the allegations, which also include the use of IFI fuel cards, is being examined by gardaí. It is understood a decision on whether a criminal charge will be brought against Mr Gorman is ‘imminent’.
However, these subsequent allegations did not form part of the WRC investigation.
In a ruling last month, the WRC found Mr Gorman was entitled to a year’s salary, €77,000, for unfair dismissal, but the compensation was reduced by 50% as he ‘significantly contributed to his dismissal’ and ‘made a serious error’.
The WRC found his actions could have justified demotion or unpaid suspension but said the ‘sudden suspension’ was ‘obviously punitive and unfair’. ‘This suspension came on the back of an anonymous letter submitted to the respondent’s parent department. That potentially any member of the public could secure the immediate suspension of a member of staff by writing an anonymous letter and without providing any evidence is quite shocking,’ the WRC said.
Mr Gorman did not dispute having the tractor but felt the investigation was ‘unfair’. The WRC was satisfied it was ‘not unusual for staff to store equipment on their personal properties at times’.
It criticised IFI CEO Mr O’Donnell, saying ‘the reason given for the suspension, to ensure a proper investigation, has never been substantiated’ by IFI.
‘I am entirely unsure of what evidence was at risk by the complainant continuing to carry out his work. The CEO had already looked up the local depot’s fuel records before even notifying the complainant of the letter and enacting the suspension’, the WRC stated.
It concluded that from the time of the suspension, Mr Gorman was ‘not being treated fairly’. ‘It is clear CEO [Mr O’Donnell] sought to influence the investigation off the record. He explicitly asked to speak with the investigator privately [which was not facilitated]. I do not know whether the CEO’s attempt to influence the disciplinary process surreptitiously was an isolated event or not,’ the report said.
It also said that ‘it does seem like the CEO was targeting the complainant for some reason’.
‘Unsure what evidence was at risk’