Psychologist bullied out of job, tribunal hears

AFTER a senior clinical psychologist wrote to the Minister for Health, his employers levelled eight allegations against him, the Employment Appeals Tribunal heard yesterday.

Patricia Doherty, deputy chief executive of Dublin disability service provider St Michael’s House, conceded that its list of complaints against Dr Mark Harrold could be seen as retaliation for his writing the letter.

Dr Harrold, who resigned his post in 2004, is taking a constructive dismissal case against the service provider, as he claims he was bullied out of his job.

He had written to then Minister for Health Micheál Martin complaining how his employer, in June 2002, had dealt with his concerns about patient treatment.

Dr Harrold had also requested that Mr Martin carry out an independent investigation into the death of a disabled former St Michael’s resident.

The charges against the psychologist were “groundless,” Dr Harrold’s lawyer Michael Howard said.

The psychologist claims his former employer attempted to have his concerns investigated by an in-house panel, some of whose members he felt could not be impartial.

When Dr Harrold objected to taking part in the internal investigation, Mr Howard said, he was told he could be subject to disciplinary procedures if he did not co-operate.

Dr Harrold would have preferred if the Department of Health had carried out the investigation.

Some of his concerns related to the treatment of former St Michael’s disabled resident Peter McKenna, 60, who had Down syndrome and Alzheimer’s disease. Mr McKenna died in October 2000, two weeks after his admission to the Leas Cross nursing home in controversial circumstances. The nursing home has since closed.

Counsel for Dr Harrold said an independent report into Mr McKenna’s death backed up Dr Harrold’s initial concerns.

“The Hynes report into the death of Peter McKenna made swingeing criticisms of the manner in which he was treated by St Michael’s,” Mr Howard said.

He suggested to Ms Doherty she was “making up” her organisation’s disciplinary procedures as she went along, that it was an ad hoc system rather than a clear written procedure.

Ms Doherty insisted they were working in unusual circumstances in what was an extreme situation.

Asked by Mr Howard if the complaints against Dr Harrold - after he wrote to the Minister for Health - could be capable of being seen as retaliation, she replied: “I accept that.”

The case continues today.