A SENIOR economist in the Central Bank has won his High Court challenge to a decision by his employer to put him on long-term sick leave.
John Delaney (48) claimed the bank improperly influenced a psychiatrist who deemed him unfit for work in a report that stated Mr Delaney had presented traits of a personality disorder or emerging delusional disorder.
Mr Delaney obtained his own psychiatric opinion, which strongly disputed that diagnosis and found he had an adjustment disorder developed against a background of stress in the workplace.
As a result of being forced to go on sick leave in July 2008 on foot of the bank’s psychiatric report, Mr Delaney claimed he was reduced to living on pension payments amounting to 40 per cent of his gross annual salary of €108,000.
As a result of his complaints of bullying made against his superiors, which were not upheld, he claimed his bosses improperly influenced a consultant psychiatrist to declare him unfit for work by supplying the psychiatrist with the results of the bullying investigation. The bank denied his claims and argued it had acted fairly and reasonably.
Yesterday, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy found the process under which Mr Delaney was referred to the psychiatrist was not conducted in accordance with his entitlement to fair procedures.
She declared the decision to refer him null and void and directed he should be restored to the bank’s payroll, with arrears paid to him.
The judge said the crucial factor underlying the difference in the opinions between the bank-appointed psychiatrist and Mr Delaney’s psychiatrist related to material provided by Mr Delaney’s superiors to the bank-appointed psychiatrist, Dr Damian Mohan. That material included an investigator’s report into Mr Delaney’s allegations of bullying.
The bank’s decision that Mr Delaney should not return to work from July 2008 was based entirely on Dr Mohan’s report compiled on the basis of disputed material supplied to the doctor, which Mr Delaney had not been given the right to challenge, she ruled.
The process that led to Dr Mohan’s report was not conducted in accordance with fair procedures. The process was also unfair because the bank refused to provide this and other material to Mr Delaney on grounds of legal privilege when, in the context of Dr Mohan being retained by the bank, no such privilege arose, the judge added.
In relation to Mr Delaney’s claim that his direct referral by the bank to Dr Mohan was unjustified, the judge said Mr Delaney had agreed to attend the psychiatrist with the benefit of independent legal advice. That issue was therefore not open to challenge at this stage, she ruled.