RTÉ is facing a legal battle with Ryan Tubridy over clashing interpretations of the station’s contractual obligations to its former presenter.
At a meeting of the Oireachtas media committee on Wednesday, the broadcaster’s director general Kevin Bakhurst confirmed that lawyers acting for Mr Tubridy had sent legal letters to RTÉ following the collapse of negotiations to bring him back on air last month.
“It’s fair to say there is a dispute over the contract,” Mr Bakhurst said, while RTÉ’s head of legal affairs Paula Mullooly said that “there has been an exchange of legal correspondence and we take a different view on the position of Ryan Tubridy’s contract”.
A spokesman for Mr Tubridy had no comment when contacted on Wednesday evening.
Savaged by Anton: Easy questions for Seán O’Rourke, gentle inquisition for Lynn Boylan
Agent Noel Kelly bounces back after Tubridy controversy
RTÉ records net deficit of €9.1m amid plummeting licence fee revenues
Siún Ní Raghallaigh, seven months after RTÉ affair: the Oireachtas hearings were ‘vicious. People were unfairly treated, as if they had no rights’
Board members at RTÉ also described a culture at the organisation wherein information was presented to the board as a “fait accompli”, according to board member David Harvey, and that there “wasn’t a culture of discussion or interrogation”.
Committee members challenged board members over their failure to convene adequate numbers of meetings of key board subcommittees, as well as the absence of anyone with accounting experience on the board for a number of years.
RTÉ board member Robert Shortt said that members did ask questions but “not enough questions”.
Ian Kehoe, the deputy chair, said that he “deeply regrets” not raising concerns over the low number of meetings held by the remuneration committee, but maintained that he had raised questions while at times being frustrated at the quality of answers that were given back.
During a committee hearing lasting almost four hours, RTÉ bosses also confirmed that there was no legal recourse for the station regarding €150,000 in fees paid to Mr Tubridy under the tripartite agreement between him, the broadcaster and Renault.
Mr Tubridy had signalled a willingness to return the money, which was to be paid out in exchange for events planned under the tripartite agreement that never took place, during an appearance at a Dáil committee earlier this summer.
Documents given by RTÉ to the media committee this week make clear that any return to the airwaves was contingent on the money being repaid, but Mr Bakhurst confirmed on Wednesday there was no way for the broadcaster to claim it – although he said he believed there was a “moral case” for it to be paid back.
Mr Bakhurst signalled that he will produce an outline plan for an overhaul of the station in October, with expectations in government that some form of voluntary redundancy scheme will come on to the table – although the director general said that cash at RTÉ is currently too constrained to finance such an operation.
He said again that all options were on the table regarding the sale of Montrose, and that a valuation of the site had been commissioned and the broadcaster had considered alternate sites in Dublin – as well as moving some functions out of the capital.
The director general also rounded on practices formerly in place at RTÉ, including holding a membership at the exclusive London Soho House club, which he said was “shocking”. He also said that car allowances should not be described as such as they were not required to actually be spent on a car.
Mr Bakhurst confirmed that he has been in touch with director of content Jim Jennings, the most senior RTÉ executive still at the broadcaster who has not given evidence to an Oireachtas committee.
He said Mr Jennings is unwell and has been advised not to give evidence to the committee despite wanting to do so – but indicated that he still had “many questions” he wanted Mr Jennings to answer at the right time.
RTÉ also doubled down on its refusal to release the names of its top 100 earners, with Ms Mullooly saying it would be “wrong” to do so.
