A director of the Irish Prison Service (IPS) has told a Workplace Relations Commission hearing he was penalised by the Department of Justice for making protected disclosures.
Don Culliton, a former director of human resources with the IPS, said that a report into a complaint about a prisoner transfer made in 2018 was left to “hang over” him after he made four protected disclosures to the Department alleging they had failed to comply with legal obligations in their investigation of the complaint.
In response, legal counsel for the Department of Justice, Mary-Paula Guinness, said the Department did not consider the issues raised by Mr Culliton to be protected disclosures, and she further said that he had not given any evidence as to how the investigation of the original complaint had damaged his reputation.
Mr Culliton was seeking adjudication from the WRC in a penalisation complaint under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014. He said a complaint was made in 2018 in relation to a prisoner transfer, alleging gross mismanagement, breach of health and safety, and the miscarriage of justice. He said that on July 29, 2019, he was notified that his status had changed from being a witness to being a respondent in this investigation.
Mr Culliton said that in September 2019, he made disclosures to the head of internal audit in the Department of Justice alleging that the Department had failed to comply with legal obligations.
He said that on February 25, 2020, he received notice that no finding would be made regarding the complaint made in 2018, but the Department continued the investigation. He said this decision to continue the investigation was directly connected to the disclosures he had made.
He said there was no reason for the failure of the Department to protect his good name, and he alleged that this was done in retaliation for the disclosures he had made. He said the Department had allowed the matter to “hang over” him.
He said that it was his belief that the department had failed to comply with the legal obligation to ensure he had the appropriate representation, and he also said that unfair procedures were carried out by RSM Ireland, who he said had “attempted to ambush” him at a meeting, as he was expected to respond to hundreds of pages of material.
In response, Ms Guinness said it was denied that Mr Culliton had made protected disclosures. She also said he had not given details of what the allegations of penalisation against him were.
Ms Guinness said that one allegation was partially upheld in the investigation, and the Department was happy to stand over the RSM report. Ms Guinness said that Mr Culliton was aware of the process, and at no stage was the Department aware that his complaints were a protected disclosure.
Mr Culliton said that a negative finding in the matter was communicated to his line manager and the original complainant, which caused damage to his reputation. He said that on August 25, 2022, he received a letter from the Department that in effect said they were not taking any position on the matter. He said that this decision to let the report “hang over” him was unfair treatment. He went on to say that when the department took that view, they did not communicate this to his line manager and the original complainant.
He asked the Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer Janet Hughes to find his complaint well founded and award compensation for the detriment he experienced.
Walter Johnson, head of internal audit at the Department of Justice, said that the Department never considered Mr Culliton’s complaints as protected disclosures. He said that they were ongoing queries that the Department responded to through formal meetings.
Ms Hughes asked Mr Johnson why he had not regarded the issues raised by Mr Culliton as protected disclosures, to which Mr Johnson replied: “Hand on heart, I didn’t consider the issues he raised as wrongdoings.”
Declan Walsh, a partner in RSM Ireland, gave evidence that the terms of reference were amended to make Mr Culliton respondent instead of witness. He said that a person is only designated a respondent when they may have a case to answer.
Mr Culliton said the Department had not proved on the balance of probabilities that the four communications he sent in 2019 were not protected disclosures, so therefore they were.
“They penalised me for making a protected disclosure; they did that by amending the terms of reference,” said Mr Culliton.
In her final submissions for the Department of Justice, Ms Guinness said that Mr Culliton had been the head of HR at the time and had knowledge of the procedure.
“We do not accept that he made a protected disclosure,” she said.
Ms Guinness said that Mr Culliton gave no evidence of how his reputation was damaged and there was no evidence of any harm or damage.
Ms Hughes told the parties that she hoped to have a decision in the case by the end of October or the start of November.
