Siptu whistleblower claims she came ‘under attack’ from union

Ger Malone says ‘everything came crashing down’ after her protected disclosure

A case involving a senior Siptu official who claims “everything I believed in came crashing down” after making a protected disclosure has been adjourned because the trade union said it had been “surprised with information” and was not in a position to proceed.

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) hearing, which had already been subject to numerous delays, was due to take place in Waterford courthouse yesterday.

Ger Malone, who has worked for Siptu for three decades and served as chairperson of its Staff Representative Council for nine years, was due to give evidence regarding 16 protected disclosures and claims she experienced 29 acts of penalisation after reporting allegations of serious wrongdoing to management.

Siptu denies the allegations and said it intends to vigorously defend the claims.

Ms Malone sought to make an application to extend the statutory time limits so as to include other allegations, but Siptu said it had not been given notice of this in advance. She told the hearing she found herself in a “very difficult position” and alleges she was “union-bashed” by the “most powerful union in the country”.

She said she was “absolutely shattered” and “traumatised”. She said:

“I found myself in exceptional circumstances, particularly after I didn’t succeed in securing the position of chairman, which I had held for nine years.”

She claimed she “came under severe attack” after making a protected disclosure.

“Everything I had believed in just came crashing down,” she told the hearing.

“It was like somebody pulled my soul out of me. I had a huge sense of loss. I found myself anxious going through the motions of just trying to figure out how this could happen. I felt betrayed, I felt distraught. I found myself overwhelmed by power,” she added.

Ms Malone has brought the claims under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

The union’s representative, Karen O’Loughlin, said it had not been notified about such an application in advance of the hearing.

She also argued she had not been given a list of witnesses who were due to give evidence on behalf of Ms Malone.

“We had no notice an application was going to be made,” Ms O’Loughlin told the hearing. “We are not prepared. We don’t have documentation for the alleged penalisations one to 18, so will not be in a position to deal with those today”.

Karen O’Loughlin said a hearing was “not the place for surprises” and sought an adjournment.

Anne Flynn, representing Ms Malone, accused Siptu of being “obstructive”. She argued the union had “ample time” to prepare and pointed out that Ms Malone had been waiting a year and a half for the case to proceed.

“There is no attempt on our part to be obstructive,” Ms O’Loughlin responded.

“We have reams of paperwork and hours have gone into this. These are extremelyserious allegations and we would like to have the full picture,” she said.

Adjudicator Marie Flynn provisionally adjourned the hearing until June 26.

The Sunday Independent reported last week how the allegations against Siptu include that the union is close to a “Me Too” moment, that management used “insidious coercive tactics to psychologically harm” an official who spoke up about wrongdoing and that one member embroiled in a difficult dispute had even attempted suicide after receiving no backing from Liberty Hall, according to a 280-page submission.

Ms Malone is alleging that a senior Siptu official hired a woman to be his “eyes and ears” within the trade union organisation. She claims she attended a meeting on February 28, 2020, to represent a colleague who had made a “protected disclosure”, according to a submission she made to the WRC.

Ms Malone’s colleague had been informed that their fixed-term employment contract was being terminated.

The protected disclosure made by the woman “was serious and significant in that it disclosed ‘wrongdoings’ relating to a senior member of the management who had targeted, befriended the discloser and offered them a job as their ‘eyes and ears’,” Ms Malone’s submission states.

“The termination was reversed and the colleague was transferred to a different location in another county,” it said.

Concerned by what she had learned, Ms Malone subsequently made her own protected disclosure about the matter but alleges that she has been penalised and faced huge problems ever since.

Ms Malone is “a staunch trade unionist whose career has been sabotaged because she has been disclosing the wrongdoings she has experienced and come across during the course of her work from 2020”, said the submission.

She is now seeking five years’ salary as compensation for alleged victimisation – the maximum that can be granted under protected disclosure legislation.

‘The official is seeking five years’ salary as compensation for alleged victimisation’