A veteran SIPTU official who said she turned whistleblower over alleged wrongdoing at a senior level in the organisation has told a tribunal that everything she believed in "came crashing down" when she claimed she was "union-bashed" by "the most powerful union in the country".
Ger Malone, a longstanding union organiser and the former chair of Siptu's internal staff representative council, has brought claims of whistleblower penalisation under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 against the union at the Workplace Relations Commission.
She claims she suffered 29 distinct acts of penalisation on foot of 17 protected disclosures. The union has acknowledged that three communications from Ms Malone were protected acts - but denies the facts alleged in them, any wrongdoing on the part of the organisation, and any penalisation.
Her case was set to open at a sitting of the Workplace Relations Commission at Waterford Courthouse this morning, which was heavily attended by the press and members of the public.
However, the matter has been put back after Ms Malone said she wanted the tribunal to extend its jurisdiction to consider matters earlier than six months before she lodged her complaint in November 2022.
Siptu said it had not prepared a response on these and it would be unfair to leave "allegations hanging out there" without a response.
Applying for an extension of statutory time limits at the opening of the hearing, Ms Malone's representative, Anne Flynn, said her client went through a "continuum" of making protected disclosures and suffering penalisation.
She said Ms Malone only "retrospectively figured out what was actually happening to her" and identified "direct attacks on her".
Addressing the hearing, Ms Malone said the delay was because she was left "absolutely stunned" when she was voted out of her position as chair of the union's internal staff representative council (SRC) in April 2022.
"I’m up against the might of Siptu, who've just managed to swing it that I’ve been removed from the chair of the SRC. The SRC I can't go to because all of those people have conspired against me, as far as I’m concerned, so I have nowhere to go," she said.
"Everything I had believed in just came crashing down, it was like somebody pulled my soul out of me. I felt overwhelmed by power [and] found myself in a scenario where I had very little in terms of support apart from my very good colleagues," she said.
"I’m up against the might of Siptu, who've just managed to swing it that I’ve been removed from the chair of the SRC. The SRC I can't go to because all of those people have conspired against me, as far as I’m concerned, so I have nowhere to go," she said.
"I have been union-bashed – who do I go to, do I go to a solicitor? My options in relation to this were non-existent, so I continued to do my work, even though I was absolutely shattered," she said.
She claimed that acts of penalisation against her "rapidly increased" after that. She cited four letters from management in that regard, which she said included criticism of her handling of a case, and questioned her ability to follow instruction, handle her workload, and her "ability to navigate strategy".
She said these were all "absolute nonsense".
Adjudicator Marie Flynn said she wanted to reserve her position on the extension of time limits and proposed to press on into hearing evidence on all of the alleged protected disclosures. There was also a legal dispute over the burden of proof and which side had to present its case first.
The adjudicator proposed the complainant side present evidence on each individual alleged protected disclosure in turn and allow its witnesses to be cross-examined piecemeal on each by the union.
However, Karan O’Loughlin, appearing for Siptu, said the respondent did not have a full picture of the case in the absence of a witness list from Ms Malone's side.
She also said it was not prepared to respond to the first ten protected disclosures referred to in Ms Malone’s submissions as these were outside the usual six-month timeframe and the union had no documentation on it.
The union acknowledged that three out of 17 communications referred to by Ms Malone in her legal submissions had been protected disclosures. However Ms O'Loughlin said the union rejects the facts alleged in the communications and "absolutely rejects wrongdoing" by the organisation.
Ms O'Loughlin submitted that it would be "unfair" to allow allegations to "hang out there" without a response it was not in a position to give.
Anne Flynn, Ms Malone's representative, said they wanted to move ahead with the case and that they saw the union’s stance as "obstructive".
"There is no effort on our part to be obstructive," Ms O’Loughlin said.
She added that the union had carried out "hours of preparation" and produced "reams of paperwork" in response to "serious" allegations, but that it wanted "the full picture before us" before it could defend the claim.
"I’m going to accept your objection," Ms Flynn told the respondent.
There was a call of "ah here" from the public seating.
"Ms O’Loughlin has presented her concerns that she would not have a fair hearing. I’m going to adjourn the hearing today," the adjudicator stated.
Ms Malone said: "The only person I see who’s being treated unfairly here is myself."
Someone in the public gallery spoke up and said "hear hear", and another said "again". Adjudicator Ms Flynn, said: "There’s only one spokesperson here."
The adjudicator adjourned the case before lunchtime and gave the parties indicative dates of June 26 and 27 for its resumption.
