Coughlan under fire over fresh comments on Molloy
Last night, Ms Coughlan told a Dáil debate she had not sought legal advice on how to handle Rody Molloy’s departure. She said this was because the prospect of him taking legal action to fight for an improved pension was “not the deciding factor”.
Ms Coughlan said she had been advised by officials in both her Department of Enterprise and the Department of Finance and fear of legal action was secondary.
But when details emerged of Mr Molloy’s pension last month the Tánaiste was first to cite legal concerns. At the time she said: “If Mr Molloy had not moved on and if he had taken legal action against his dismissal you and I would [not] be having this conversation today because it would probably be in the courts,” she said.
Yesterday in separate debates both the Labour Party and FG pressed Taoiseach Brian Cowen and Ms Coughlan on their handling of Mr Molloy’s departure.
During Leaders’ Questions Mr Cowen said when the outgoing director general was negotiating his resignation there was an implicit knowledge that he would be entitled to take his case to court. However, the threat was not verbalised.
“What was being asked by Mr Molloy was that he would reserve his position on the basis of discussions that were taking place. There is always a risk of action. [But] I am not saying action was threatened,” he said.
The Taoiseach said the Government and the board of Fás were only concerned with ensuring Mr Molloy left quickly.
Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny said regardless of their motivation the Government was under no obligation to top-up Mr Molloy’s pension irrespective of other entitlements due to him if he had been fired.
Mr Kenny said many who had lost their jobs viewed the awards given to Mr Molloy with incredulity.
And last night moving a motion critical of Fás Labour party deputy Roisín Shortall said there were too many versions of the story.
She pointed to the appearance of the secretary general of the Department of Enterprise last week which suggested legal fears were of greater concerns than the Government described.
“[The secretary general of the department] stated that ‘The threat of the courts was hanging over us.’ He went on to state ‘It was also made clear that, if the individual believed that he was not being treated reasonably, he would reserve his right to take court action.’
“Either there was a legal threat or there wasn’t. Either a legal threat was made clear to the Government or it wasn’t. If there was no legal threat, then why the generous severance package?” she said.
