More than 30 members of the public and the press have been ordered out of an equality hearing into “serious” racial discrimination claims at a university of in the wake of an alleged poison pen campaign against witnesses.
Seeking a private hearing at the Workplace Relations Commission on Friday, the institution’s solicitor said anonymous emails had gone out to up to 1,000 addresses identifying its witnesses by name and making “defamatory” comments about them.
Close to 40 people had dialled in for a preliminary videoconference hearing on a racial discrimination complaint under the Employment Equality Act 1998 by an academic who worked on a research project there.
In her complaint, the researcher referred to two alleged incidents of discriminatory harassment in May and June last year, as well as alleged discrimination in respect of her terms of employment.
The university’s solicitor said the complaint included claims against three named employees as well as the institution itself.
“They’re serious allegations of racial discrimination. They are vigorously denied,” counsel said.
“There has been an unnamed, and at this point unidentified, person who has anonymously been promoting details of this case, identifying witnesses by name, including within emails and social media publications [and making] defamatory remarks about those witnesses,” he said.
He said the scope of the publications was “enormous” – and included emails from anonymous addresses to “well over a thousand” recipients at the university, at other third-level institutions, and beyond among the wider public, including people who had only filled out a survey.
“To be clear, it is, and it is being treated as, a data breach. It is defamatory, it’s criminal and illegal, and it amounts to a large-scale intimidation of our witnesses and it’s crystal-clear from the list of email recipients to date that it can only have emanated from a person within the [named] Project,” the solicitor said.
That was the research area where the complainant had worked, he submitted – arguing that there was an “overwhelming likelihood” that witness testimony would be taped and posted on the internet if it continued online and in public, continuing the alleged intimidation.
“The only real protection available which is within your gift, chair, is to proceed with this portion of the hearing on a private, in-camera basis,” he said.
He also made a further application that any aspect of the case which involved the taking of evidence should be done in-person rather than online.
The complainant, who was representing herself as a lay litigant, said the email submitted to the tribunal was “shocking”.
“It was redacted so I don’t know [to whom] it was sent,” she said adding that she had sought confirmation from the WRC seeking to know how many people had received the access link for the remote hearing and whether they had received “any sort of anonymous or defamatory email”.
Asked for her position on the university’s first application, the complainant said: “I don’t think it should be in private.”
“And why not?” asked adjudicator Niamh O’Carroll.
“The Zalewski case, the 2021 Supreme Court case [requires] hearing in public,” she said. She rejected any suggestion that there was a “threatening mob” or “someone here to threaten anyone” at the hearing.
“I do see that a lot of people who signed on are people who are affiliated with the university but those are mostly people that I know and I asked to be here for moral support,” the complainant said.
“I don’t know what the purpose was of this anonymous email campaign that [the university’s solicitor] has [told the hearing of], but I don’t see that his fears have materialised,” she added.
Ms O’Carroll said there were an “enormous number” of attendees online and said she believed it to be the biggest number of public attendees she had seen at the WRC.
“People have a right to be here and that’s that,” she said, but went on to say that she had the authority under to hear the matter in camera if certain criteria applied.
“One of those criteria is that having it heard in public could result in a real risk of harm to a party... I have noted the sample emails sent through to the WRC and the contents of those. Nobody knows – I don’t know – who sent them,” she said.
“Based on the contents of those emails I too would share some – some – of [the university’s] concerns,” the adjudicator continued, and said she would exercise her discretion to hear the matter in camera.
“What that means is that anybody who is not directly involved in this case, anyone who the parties are not proposing to call as a witness should leave. That includes the media, there are members of the media who area also present, everyone should leave this hearing now,” she concluded.
