A woman who was penalised after making protected disclosures alleging financial "profligacy" by the youth charity she worked for has been awarded €75,000 by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC).
The complainant, Suzanne Picton, was employed as the financial controller and administration coordinator at Matt Talbot Adolescent Services Clg in Cork from May 2009 until her position's redundancy on February 11, 2022.
The Matt Talbot organisation is a community-based education programme for young people with social issues that may lead to possible drug-use and criminal behaviour.
The WRC heard last year that Ms Picton's protected disclosures to the Health Service Executive (HSE) addressed "governance and procurement issues, managerial decisions, and concerns around decisions involving the disbursement of public and charitable monies" that Ms Picton alleged may constitute "undue profligacy".
Ms Picton, represented by Lorna Madden BL, instructed by McCarthy Teahan LLP, said she submitted her first protected disclosure to the HSE in July 2019.
Ms Picton said she had "significant concerns", as a certified public accountant, and that she had "a responsibility to the public as well as the organisation" in that regard.
Ms Picton made a second HSE disclosure in January 2022, regarding an expense which the organisation paid out.
Ms Picton said that there had been "no procurement process" regarding this disbursement, and that this payment was an "excessive" amount for a charity to pay.
The complainant submitted to the WRC that she had "always done the right thing", "stood by employees" and that the organisation has "a duty of care to everybody, not just ourselves".
The complainant submitted that she believed she was "targeted, because I made a disclosure" and that her role and responsibilities in the organisation were "diminished" because of the protected disclosures.
In one of her disclosures, Ms Picton said there was a spend of over €4,000 in one month in relation to legal fees and that this expense "would have been the amount for the full year".
She further submitted that her then CEO was earning approximately €70,000 but had "no management experience".
Denis Collins BL, instructed by O'Flynn Exhams LLP, for the respondent, said that while a protected disclosure had been made to the HSE, "no wrongdoing was found to have occurred".
Mr Collins submitted that a "grievance was borne out of the complainant’s interpersonal difficulties with the CEO".
"An investigation was carried out into the matter and there were no findings of wrongdoing - it was a matter dealt with by the HSE," submitted Mr Collins.
Mr Collins also submitted that regarding the protected disclosures, the organisation had already "substantially changed" by August 2020.
In a decision published today, WRC adjudication officer Ms Lefre De Burgh found that Ms Picton was "penalised by her line manager, the then CEO of the organisation, and to a lesser extent by the board".
She said the complainant was "targeted, sidelined and penalised and her role diminished as a direct result of her having raised concerns and made protected disclosures."
Ms De Burgh said the charity had failed or refused to process an application for pay restoration to which Ms Picton was entitled. The adjudication officer found that this, in itself, constituted penalisation.
Ms De Burgh also found that the "tone and content" of correspondence from the charity to Ms Picton was "extraordinary in nature, and there is very little reality to it."
She added: "I do not accept the submission made on behalf of the respondent that the issues which occurred are fully encompassed within the frame of 'interpersonal difficulties’. I find that her disclosures went considerably beyond that."
Ms De Burgh further found that weaknesses in the governance structure were highlighted when the complainant attempted to raise concerns, to be heard and ultimately to make protected disclosures.
Ms De Burgh said that the concerns raised related to the "organisational approach to public and charitable monies having become somewhat profligate in breach of the required constraints, policies and frameworks".
"It is fully accepted that there is no suggestion of any individual enriching themselves or anyone else in respect of how funds were used - there is no allegation of diversion of funds out of the organisation, no suggestion of embezzlement and no suggestion of personal enrichment," noted Ms De Burgh.
"I find that she [Ms Picton] suffered detriment. I find that that detriment was causally linked to the disclosures made, which constitutes penalisation. I find that the respondent has failed to rebut the allegation of penalisation," said Ms De Burgh, who awarded Ms Picton €75,000.
