Finlay backs psychologist in constructive dismissal case

FORMER Labour Party strategist Fergus Finlay yesterday paid glowing tribute to senior clinical psychologist Dr Mark Harrold who alleges being bullied out of his job at St Michael’s House.

Dr Harrold, who resigned his post in 2004, is taking a constructive dismissal case against the Dublin-based disability service provider.

St Michael’s House denies Dr Harrold’s contention that a culture of bullying existed in its organisation and claims he walked off the job.

Mr Finlay told the Employment Appeals Tribunal: “I would say he is the most committed professional I’ve ever worked with in the field of intellectual disabilities. Nobody in my life’s experience has given of himself more than Mark. He’s a 24-hours, seven- days-a-week man.”

Mr Finlay, chief executive of children’s charity Barnardos and chairman of Special Olympics Ireland, described being told by social workers of an oppressive workplace culture when they tried to express and raise concerns.

He was called as a character witness to refute allegations of non-professionalism by St Michael’s management against Dr Harrold.

Dr Harrold claims he became a victim of bullying when he started to voice his concerns about care practices. 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.

Two former St Michael’s social workers Aoife O’Neill and Emer Lynch described the service provider’s style of management as one which discouraged staff from expressing their opinions.

Ms O’Neill gave evidence of “a huge level of discontent and a climate of fear” among staff who felt restricted from voicing their concerns to management.

Ms Lynch said there was an “oppressive atmosphere” at their meetings.

Co-workers told her to be careful about what she said at meetings with management, as strong opinions contrary to decisions made “higher up” would not be received well.

The case continues today.