£80,000 for victim of sectarian harassment

An Ulsterbus employee at the company’s Ballymena depot has been rewarded almost £80,000 after successfully claiming he was a victim of sectarian harassment. Catholic man, Gerald Duffy, was repeatedly singled out by fellow employees for sectarian abuse, including threats to his life.

  • SuperSoupy

    Is this the 3rd time this man has had to take Translink to a tribunal over this kind of behaviour? The story refers to actions in 2001 and 2002 in addition to the current judgement.

    It would not be the first time Translink has had multiple judgements made in relation to one employee and not the first time they would have been found guilty of allowing the complainant to be victimised after.

    In fact they had a previous award, followed by a an award for subsequent victimisation then followed by an award to an employee victimised for giving evidence in relation to the first case.

  • Cato

    I look forward to the day when Christopher Donnelly posts a story about discrimination against Protestants. When I see it, then I will be convinced of his anti-sectarian agenda.

  • Roisin

    Cato,

    You can access information from the Fair Employment Tribunal and post the stories yourself. This begs the question, why don’t you?

  • SuperSoupy

    Roisin,

    What do you expect? He has just read a story on proven long term discrimination and seems to suggest the person noting the issue is sectarian.

    I’d suggest his reflex reaction to the issue reflects more on him.

  • Cato

    Roisin,

    I don’t blog on this site. I only comment. I am interested in hearing about discrimination against both Catholics and Protestants.
    Thank you for the information about the Fair Employment Tribunal website but I’m sure I won’t need it with Chris around. He takes such an interest in discrimination that I am sure we can trust him to blog details of it, from wherever it derives and whoever is its victim.

  • Whether of not Chris likes to highlight stories that make protestants look bad, the fact remains that these particular people DO look bad. There was disgraceful bullying and victimisation, and a dreadful failure on the part of the management to do anything about it. Whether the catholic community is without exception above blame is neither here nor there.

    This sort of behaviour should be condemned by all decent people, whoever is doing it, whomever is the victim, and regardless of whether the stated cause is racism, sectarianism, political bigotry, intolerance for any sort of difference, or simply an effort to bolster personal inadequacy by taking it out on someone weaker.

    OK. Liberal rant out of the way. Back to slagging off themmuns!

  • Cato

    Supersoupy,

    I will take no lectures from someone who supports a party with such dubious morality that it condemns discrimination like this and yet failed to condemn the murder of Patsy Gillespie, who was strapped into a bomb-laden lorry and forced to drive it to a barracks while his family were held hostage.

  • Roisin

    SuperSoupy,

    That is taken as read.

    What concerns me is the way these cases of discrimination are dealt with.

    From the linked article: [i]Mr Duffy said: “My dreams were shattered from what happened, it will be hard to work for somebody else again.”[/i]

    From this I presume the discrimination, threats and harassment he was subjected to over a prolonged period resulted in Mr. Duffy not being able to continue his employment.

    The Tribunal awards money, compensation for loss of income and damages suffered. Compared to a case in London last year, where a woman employee was subjected to some offensive comments and exclusionary treatment by co-workers, the amount awarded is paltry and doesn’t really act as a deterrent to the companies where this type of behaviour is permitted to exist. The cost is invariably passed on to the customer. This seems to be the norm in discrimination/harassment cases in the north.

    There are more punitive measures that can enacted, if the will is there. Companies can be made to pay out much higher awards, and they can be ordered to restore the workplace to a healthy environment for the discrimated-against/harassed employee, with monitoring to ensure compliance. In places where this is the norm, it is much more customary for the company to dismiss the employees who fail to conduct themselves within the normal expectations of any workplace. And that’s the way it should be.

  • SuperSoupy

    Here’s the judgement from the Duffy case for those that prefer to read it over Cato’s distraction technique:

    https://employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/OnlineDecisionDocument2.aspx

  • Roisin

    Your link isn’t working.

  • Disheartening to still read about this sort of thing chris. But good to hear its being addressed; 30 yrs ago MrDuffy would have got a baton on the head by the RUC for daring to challenge the status quo, so at least there’s a change in the right direction.

    Cato, peteb does the pro-brit, anti SF stories, so its churlish to moan about bias on Sluggers

  • BP1078

    Cato, peteb does the pro-brit, anti SF stories, so its churlish to moan about bias on Sluggers

    parcifal
    Another rather obvious point is that Slugger is a blog not a state media outlet, Pete and Chris can blog whatever the hell they like.

    If people don’t like it, they should:

    1. Find factual weaknesses in the message
    2. Stop reading posts from the person in question
    3. Set up your own blog

  • Cato

    BP1078,

    I was merely pointing out the irony of those who blog about sectarian discrimination while only giving examples where Catholics are the victims.

  • SuperSoupy

    Roisin,

    Sorry, i can’t do a direct link for that site. Try accessing it from following link – just enter duffy as your claimant, then download the word file:

    https://employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/DecisionSearch.aspx

  • BP1078

    Cato
    The post Chris has put up is factual, the BBC has covered exactly the same story. I can’t find anything untrue in what he’s posted.

    Is he biased in always highlighting only one side’s sins? Probably, but no one forces you or me to read his posts. If you feel that the other side is not getting afair crack of the whip on here, E mail Mick and offer yourself up as another blogger on Slugger.

  • SuperSoupy

    Or via this link using Duffy as claimant:

    http://forms.employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/DecisionSearch.aspx

    The site is not set up to allow easy linking

  • tony encircled a sol

    “E mail Mick and offer yourself up as another blogger on Slugger. ”

    And blog the stories you seek

  • SuperSoupy

    Cato,

    “Supersoupy,

    I will take no lectures from someone who supports a party with such dubious morality that it condemns discrimination like this and yet failed to condemn the murder of Patsy Gillespie, who was strapped into a bomb-laden lorry and forced to drive it to a barracks while his family were held hostage.”

    I was not lecturing you. I wasn’t even talking to you. Like others I mention the weakness of your knee-jerk reaction to the widely covered story and try to concentrate on the topic, Mr Duffy.

    As for Patsy Gillespie..whatabout..wahatabout, scream..shout just continue to ignore the topic as you have done so far. You’ll not take an imaginary lecture but you’ll give an irrelevant rant!

  • Cato, you show your sectarianism by not even attemting to show even a vague interest in the plight of Mr.Duffy. Perhaps you will do so now.

  • JohnnyBgood

    Is Translink not a public owned company? If so, this is worse than a private company. Have the people victimising Mr. Duffy been appropriately disciplined and also, the managers who failed to act? This is like something you would have expected 20+ years ago.

  • Doctor Who

    Do you think I could sue slugger for the amount of sectarian abuse directed at me by republicans.

    No that would bring me down to their level. Nothing like a good mope.

  • oul’ dear

    I don’t want to sound like a whinger, but those MessageSpace Ads are appalling. I’d really like to read here, but I’m one of those folks who suffers from migraine which can be triggered by flickering images and lights and such like. Yahoo are doing the same thing with ads on groups, and it’s a real pain.

    Could you possibly switch to some other form of ads?

    Interested reader

  • slug

    Good to see this chap being paid damages and I hope that Ulsterbus has learned some lessons.

  • Took you long enough to blog this one lads…

    I think the point of this entire story is not about whether it was a Catholic or Protestant who was victimised, it’s the fact that the employee was subjected to an appalling amount of harassment and the management did sod all about it.

    Although to be fair to Translink (I must be getting old…), if you look on the Equality Commission website, there’s a similar complaint from Portadown rail station around 2001 or so which was dismissed, and in that case, Translink senior management seemed to have handled it very well.

  • Dave

    While it is unfortunate that this has happened what about the state sponsored discrimination against Protestants trying to join the police force.

    Or does discrimination only work one way in NI.

  • Slugger O’Toole Admin

    parci,

    That’s a yellow for you me old mucker…

  • Intelligence Insider

    I’d advise everyone to take the time and read the tribunal document. It amazes me how this guy, Duffy, a proven liar and convicted thief got away with this. Ulsterbus are bound to win their appeal.

  • James

    Cato,

    don’t worry, you have Fair Deal providing you with all your protestant-vicitmisations whinging stories, so it all evens out in the end!

  • Roisin

    SuperSoupy,

    Cheers, I’ve got it now.

    A quick question you might know the answer to: Are senior management at Translink compensated by base salary plus bonus linked to performance measures?

    The reason I ask is that for highly paid senior management this is fairly standard, and it is also not unusual to set performance measures around issues that a company has difficuties with, e.g., safety, high staff turnover, discrimination/harassment.

  • Roisin

    Wow, I only got warned about getting a yellow. Maybe if you gave me one too that would make a hattrick, Mick, and the unionist contributors and trolls can break out a round of applause and stop complaining about sectarianism at Slugger’s.

  • Roisin

    [i]I’d advise everyone to take the time and read the tribunal document. It amazes me how this guy, Duffy, a proven liar and convicted thief got away with this. Ulsterbus are bound to win their appeal.
    Posted by Intelligence Insider on Apr 07, 2007 @ 12:36 AM[/i]

    I’m in the middle of reading it, so I’ll get back to you on that.

  • qubol

    what has happened those responsible for the harassment? do they still work for Translink? if so why?
    My experience of Ulsterbus in Ballymena was one of often blatant sectarianism, like the time a certain bus driver refused to let school children on the bus with Celtic scarves – the treatment Mr Dufy experienced doesn’t surprize me at all.

  • don’t see it Mick, cato tried to pull thread off-topic several times, I stepped in to bring him back on track. Should be a medal, not a yellow.

    What are you seeing I’m not.

    Do recall I’d made a previous comment expressing my concern at Mr.Duffy’s plight, whilst Cato involved himself in whataboutery and accusations on chris, if anyone deserved the yellow it was him not me .
    Puzzled.

  • Mick Fealty

    Rois,

    You’re new here, parci isn’t. Just play the ball, and you’ll have nothing to worry about.

    Parci,

    Just go back up the thread and work it out.

  • yeah yeah yeah alright then ref, but tell him to stop being so grumpy when you next see him, there is much to be happy about these days 🙂
    … looks like my messiah nomination is up in smoke for this year.
    Happy Easter

  • Intelligence Insider

    Roisin,
    Can I take it that you have now read the tribunal report and agree with me?
    His accusations seem to be totally uncorroborated and unfounded. He obviously didn’t like his job and wasn’t very popular so decided to pull a sickie, look for another job and then go for a claim for non-existant discrimination.

  • Cato

    parcifal et al,

    I’m actually Catholic myself and I do have considerable sympathy for the plight of Mr Duffy.
    If I am guilty of playing the man, namely Christoper Donnelly, then I apologise.
    However I maintain that there are those on this site who are blinkered to the extent that they are only interested in posting about sectarian discrimination when it impacts on their own religion or political outlook, which I believe is sectarian in itself.
    In the interests of fairness, it’s not only so-called republicans here who indulge in it.

  • Realist

    “I maintain that there are those on this site who are blinkered to the extent that they are only interested in posting about sectarian discrimination when it impacts on their own religion or political outlook, which I believe is sectarian in itself”

    Absolutely correct.

  • guys, you’re right, in fact its a case of deliberate, calculated and targeted for some; however BP1078’s point still stands:

    parcifal
    Another rather obvious point is that Slugger is a blog not a state media outlet, Pete and Chris can blog whatever the hell they like.

    If people don’t like it, they should:

    1. Find factual weaknesses in the message
    2. Stop reading posts from the person in question
    3. Set up your own blog

    They are the rules here, and I’ve broken them.
    My advice is when you comes across your particular poster that’s getting on yer tits, so to speak,…..
    take a deep breath, and redouble your efforts to find factual weaknessess, and flaws in the arguments, or stop reading it.
    Don’t blog in anger, it just doesn’t work.
    Its is what makes Sluggers the best political blog on the Net; and I should know better.
    So aplogies to all.

  • JB

    While SoupS, Roisin and others jump to defend the treasonous actions of the Provos here on Slug, it is worth remebering what their blinkered vision prevents them from seeing…

    Support for the Provos has everything to do with self-serving ganfgster types and nothing to do with genuine Irish Repubicanism.

    Face it, the IRA must take share of blame

  • Roisin

    [i]You’re new here, parci isn’t. Just play the ball, and you’ll have nothing to worry about.[/i]

    I’m offended, Mick, as I’m pretty sure I’ve been here before a long time ago. Not to worry, though, I never worry about anything.

    Intelligence Insider,

    [i]Can I take it that you have now read the tribunal report and agree with me?
    His accusations seem to be totally uncorroborated and unfounded. He obviously didn’t like his job and wasn’t very popular so decided to pull a sickie, look for another job and then go for a claim for non-existant discrimination.[/i]

    No, but I can see why you’d come to that conclusion, as the thought crossed my mind a couple of times reading the report. Not regarding the harassment, but the manner he set about dealing with it by complaining to the Tribunal before utilising the company’s internal policies and procedures first.

    With regard to him seeking alternative employment while sick/unfit for work, this is not unusual in harassment cases.

    The manner in which this is set out at the early stages of the report could lead someone to conclude that the company engaged in dirt digging in order to engage in a little bit of character assassination.

    The Tribunal concluded, after conducting a proper investigation, that Mr. Duffy has been subjected to serious harassment over a prolonged period, and upheld his claim. Mr. Neilly would appear to have been the main, though not the only, protagonist.

    Moreover the company failed in its obligations to ensure proper investigation of incidents that were brought to management’s attention, and, at a minimum, reinforcing and reiterating the company’s anti-harassment policy, as well as their statutory obligations.

    When finally faced with a complaint, the company was tardy in getting an investigation underway, and Ms. Grant can only be described as incompetent, and that’s being kind. Her colleague Mr. McGreevy appeared to be completely out of his depth, relying on Ms. Grant’s memory and inadequate note taking (and perhaps direction).

    The Tribunal is also wrong to state that the minute taking was adequate. It wasn’t. Questions and answers should be recorded verbatim, with those interviewed being provided with a verbatim transcript of the interview in a timely manner.

    Translink/Ulsterbus have a systemic problem in handling anti-discrimination/anti-harassment complaints. Use of internal staff to conduct investigations, whether they are trained or not (and Grant and McGreevy were clearly either untrained or inadequately trained), is fraught with problems, not the least of which is objectivity. The company, its employees, and the public, would be better served by a change in policy/procedure that refers HR investigations to an external third-party investigator.

  • dolmen builder

    As an act of solidarity for this man , I would ask all Nationalists to boycott Translink services.

    Even if it proves nothing at least they will save a fortune in vandalism costs.

  • Intelligence Insider

    Roisin,
    We’re talking about a guy here who not only looked for, and gained, other employment but who failed to disclose previous relevant criminal convictions to both employers, who was able to jointly start up a new business and who felt able to convey patients in Homefirst transport vehicles through public areas while taking strong medication despite being given medical advice not to drive! The tribunal stated that even his co-religionists, a significant minority in the Ballymena depot workforce, failed to support his claims. His wifes uncle who also worked for Ulsterbus even failed to support his claim!
    I feel Translink should feel quite rightly feel dismayed by the result of this case, they investigated the complaint and could find no evidence as the tribunal admitted. A strong case for an appeal in this case.

  • Roisin

    Intelligence Insider,

    The non-disclosure of an old theft conviction is irrelevant to whether or not Mr. Duffy was subjected to harassment over a prolonged period. That was nothing but dirt digging in order to discredit the claimant. Looking for another job sounds like a good idea to me, in fact his doctor recommended he do something to break out of his depression.

    Getting witnesses to come forward in harassment cases is a Hurculean task. And you will note the absence of supporting witnesses did not prevent the Tribunal in conducting its investigation from reaching its conclusions.

    That’s why it’s important that competent, experienced, third-party investigators are used to conduct these types of investigations, as they are familiar with the difficulties associated with lack of witnesses, and weighing the evidence of one person’s word against another.

  • I read some of the judgement, and scanned the rest. That’ll teach me to rely on press coverage. Though, since it’s 74 pages long, I can see why the press might not have read it all either!

    Seems that the plaintiff suffered from harassment, which he did not report through Translink’s processes until after he’d put in his claim. He was also very slow to raise the issue with anyone – even the medical staff treating him for depression.

    Two of the three members of the tribunal decided that he’d been harassed, but that he was chancing it when he claimed to have been forced out of the job.

    If it shows nothing else, it demonstrates that employers have a duty to protect their employees from what might be considered bullying or harassment – and they need to be able to demonstrate that they have done this. Translink seem to have failed one or other of those tests.

  • Roisin

    Paul,

    Not quite. He reported it to the company doctor on 15 December, and did not receive a response from the company until 29 January. He formalised a complaint/claim through the Tribunal on 24 January (if my memory serves). The company was tardy in responding to the report from their doctor setting out Mr. Duffy’s harassment allegations, even taking into account the Christmas holiday period.

    From that point on, and with the company being aware of the claim through the Tribunal, incompetent and inadequate would be kind descriptions of the company’s investigation and conclusions reached.

  • Cap’n Bob

    “He reported it to the company doctor on 15 December, and did not receive a response from the company until 29 January”

    Be fair, it only took them 45 days to respond. Like when McCullough was cleared of racially abusing Deon Armitage it took the great minds of NI’s sporting press 40 days to realise that Ulster were victims (Most Oppresed Team Ever!) of gamesmanship!

  • Cahal

    Cap’n Bob

    “Be fair, it only took them 45 days to respond.”

    Only in the People’s Socialist Banana Republic of Northern Ireland would somebody consider a 45 day response period to such an allegation acceptable.

  • Intelligence Insider

    Roisin,
    Non-disclosure of his conviction for theft is not the issue I’m most concerned about, even though this was someone going to be handling money from the general public.
    What is your opinion of this guy regarding him driving patients in public areas whilst on heavy doses of medication which made him medically unfiit to drive, and failing to disclose this information to his new employers?
    Why do you feel his wife’s uncle and his co-religionists within the workforce felt themselves unable to substantiate his claims?

  • willis

    II & Roisin

    Thanks for rescuing this thread from whataboutery, because actually there is a real need for companies here to get the point about dignity at work.

    As to the behaviour of Mr Duffy. He is not on trial. Translink need to prove that they dealt effectively with a problem in their workplace. Did they?

  • Intelligence Insider

    Mr Duffy should have been noted as an unreliable witness. FULL STOP. Clearly the 3rd member of the tribunal was aware of this and was the only member to come to a sensible conclusion. I defy anyone to read the report and come back supporting this fraudster.

  • Roisin

    Willis,

    No, the Tribunal report is quite critical of Translink’s handling of this case; non-verbatim note taking at formal investigation interviews (although I should point out the Tribunal incredibly found this acceptable); note taking contradicting evidence submitted by Ms. Grant; note taking not consistent with later typed minutes; pressuring Mr. Duffy to return to work within days of receiving their own company doctor’s recommendation that Mr. Duffy was not fit to return to work and should be reviewed in two to three months; Ms. Grant’s refusal to investigate particular claims of harassment; lack of consultation after interviews between Ms. Grant and Mr. McGreevy; Mr. McGreevy signing off on Ms. Grant’s typed minutes without reviewing them properly; failure to provide the claimant with information including minutes of meetings and interviews in a timely manner; failure of local management to act appropriately on previous complaints at the workplace by Mr. Duffy; dubious claims about not knowing the religious makeup of the workforce at the Ballymena depot; and on and on.

    Intelligence Insider,

    [i]Non-disclosure of his conviction for theft is not the issue I’m most concerned about, even though this was someone going to be handling money from the general public.[/i]

    So why raise it at all then? The conviction was in 1992 prior to his employment with Translink, and no-one has claimed subsequently that Mr. Duffy was considered untrustworthy. Dirt digging to try to discredit a claimant.

    [i]What is your opinion of this guy regarding him driving patients in public areas whilst on heavy doses of medication which made him medically unfiit to drive, and failing to disclose this information to his new employers?[/i]

    Irrelevant, the claim is against his former employer. More dirt digging to try to discredit a claimant.

    [i]Why do you feel his wife’s uncle and his co-religionists within the workforce felt themselves unable to substantiate his claims?[/i]

    Witnesses in workplace harassment cases are notoriously difficult to get to testify. They have to go back to work with the people they may be testifying against.

  • Intelligence Insider

    Roisin,
    Even people who had left the employ of Ulsterbus felt unable to support his claims. As to what you have classed as “dirt digging” I think you will find that this was just a matter of trying to ascertain the credibilty of the claimant.
    Please feel free to answer the questions I asked originally at any time.

  • Intelligence Insider

    PS,
    Might I add that as a former Operations Manager in a large employer in the N.I area I was responsible for handling three complaints regarding discrimination, two of which came from Protestants and one from a Roman Catholic. After investigation the complaints from both Protestants were dismissed and that from the Roman Catholic was upheld, resulting in me dismissing two Protestant employees. I am completely against any form of discrimination against, or harassment of, any person for any reason. I just feel that I have to say I fail to see any reason why this case should have been won by Mr Duffy.

  • Roisin

    Intelligence Insider,

    I answered your questions prior to your even asking them. In case you missed it, it is not unusual for people off work sick due to harassment at work to seek alternative employment, and to be able to perform work in different circumstances to those that pertain at the place of work where the harassment is taking place, or has taken place.

    Mr. Duffy is to be commended for cutting the ties and getting on with his life.

    Please feel free to accept the judgment of competent investigators, as outlined in the Tribunal’s decision.

  • Roisin

    Intelligence Insider,

    [i]I am completely against any form of discrimination against, or harassment of, any person for any reason. I just feel that I have to say I fail to see any reason why this case should have been won by Mr Duffy.[/i]

    As I said at the start, after reading the report, I could understand why you came to the conclusion you did, as the thought crossed my mind a couple of times.

    The problem is that there’s a form of discrimination there in itself, in that it supposes that the employee making the complaint has to be perfect in order to be telling the truth. That’s wrong.

    Harassment often comes down to one person’s word against another (and in this case there is corroborating evidence, albeit not witnesses ready to step forward and testify), and bias cannot play a part in the evaluation of evidence. That’s why it’s always better to use external third-party investigators. Translink need to review their policy/procedure.

  • Intelligence Insider

    Roisin,
    I’m not expecting the employee making the complaint to be perfect, only to be honest. In my opinion, and obviously in the opinion of one of the three members of the tribunal, Mr Duffy cannot be viewed as an honest witness. I agree with much of what you say regarding third-party investigators being useful but I still fail to see what they could have achieved in this particular case. You refer to corroborating evidence above, I have to say I can see nothing to corroborate Mr Duffy’s complaints.

  • Intelligence Insider

    PS
    Roisin, I still don’t think you’ve answered my questions above, I’m asking them in a personal capacity rather than as part of the tribunal case.

  • Aquifer

    “Seems that the plaintiff suffered from harassment, which he did not report through Translink’s processes until after he’d put in his claim. He was also very slow to raise the issue with anyone – even the medical staff treating him for depression.”

    Strange to have won £80,000 then. In other area of law plaintiffs are obliged to exhaust other means of resolving their problem.

    Pity we cannot doc payments like this from the wages of perpetrators.

  • willis

    II

    If Translink had put in a proper investigation then the issue of Mr Duffy’s honesty or otherwise would have been dealt with.

    Do you think Translink had the right processes and did they apply them properly? If the Tribunal believed that the answer to both those questions was yes they would not have awarded against Translink.

  • Frustrated Democrat

    If anyone believes that tribunals are not baised in favour of the minnow against the giant they are far mistaken.

    Complainants in general are allowed to have lied falsified information and genrally mistreated their employers and still get massive awards for unsubtantiated claims – the sooner tribunals liked these are stopped and replaced with courts requiring real evidence the better.

  • IJP

    I can’t speak for the details of this case, but it is important the strong message it sends out is properly understood.

    Sectarian harassment is totally unacceptable, and must be punished as a “hate crime” and brought to a position where it is totally socially unacceptable.

    However, we must also ensure that, in achieving this objective, we don’t just drive sectarianism “underground” as it were. We must aim for a non-sectarian* society, not a sectarian but politically correct one. There’s a world of difference.

    (* By “non-sectarian society”, I should define my term: a society in which sectarian bigotry simply does not happen.)

  • Greenflag

    Aquifer,

    ‘Pity we cannot doc payments like this from the wages of perpetrators. ‘

    Now that’s what I call a good idea . Probably do more to reduce the number of incidents of this kind of case in NI.

  • Roisin

    II,

    Don’t even know what you mean by “personal capacity rather than as part of the tribunal case”. There’s no personal capacity in this, there is only the tribunal case.

    As for corroborating evidence, without having to read through 74 pages again, off the top of my head there was: hidden keys; bus driven into his car; deliveries (not the ones that weren’t corroborated to his home subsequent to his claim) his colleagues were aware of.

    Aquifier,

    Human Rights complaints usually have a variety of avenues where they can be addressed. It’s essential that they can be addressed through alternative avenue’s to the employer’s own internal processes, without exhausting that process. In fact, there is no obligation whatsoever for an employee to have to use an employer’s internal process, nor should there be. Clearly in this case, given the company’s inability to carry out a proper investigation, Mr. Duffy persued his case through the appropriate venue.

    Frustrated Democrat,

    I can only assume you aren’t aware that Tribunals of this nature require evidence, and testimony with examination and cross examination of witnesses.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Intelligence Insider: “Even people who had left the employ of Ulsterbus felt unable to support his claims. As to what you have classed as “dirt digging” I think you will find that this was just a matter of trying to ascertain the credibilty of the claimant. ”

    When lacking any sort of affirmative defense, smear the claimant.

    When you put it plainly, it takes up fair less space…

  • grumbleweed

    Cato > “However I maintain that there are those on this site who are blinkered to the extent that they are only interested in posting about sectarian discrimination when it impacts on their own religion or political outlook, which I believe is sectarian in itself. ”

    What drivel.

    People blogging on a story which they can relate to or which is close to their own self interests is sectarian? Whatever next?

    In the interest of keeping things fair, should the OP also have posted a story about discrimination against blacks, jews, gentiles, muslims, arabs & three legged frogs?

    Isn’t the whole idea of having multiple contributors to allow the content to reflect a range of viewpoints?

  • Mr Wilson

    (W)RightBus … but not for the wrong people!