Evidence presented to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) revealed that leading figures at the Unite trade union had intended to negotiate an exit package with Brendan Ogle to dissuade him from seeking a promotion to the position of regional secretary for the Republic of Ireland. The revelation was made by a witness who recalled that last year, Peter Hughes – Unite’s regional secretary for Wales, tasked with examining a complaint lodged by Mr Ogle – made the approach. Mr Ogle’s grievance was based on him being overlooked upon his return to work in 2022 following a severe bout with cancer.
John Douglas, former Mandate general secretary, testified on Mr Ogle’s behalf under the Employment Equality Act 1998, stating to the senior officials of Unite that he believed Mr Ogle had been publicly humiliated and labelled a failure. Douglas further stated that Ogle had one of the country’s most visible figures as the head of the ‘Right2Water’ movement, amongst other initiatives. So witnessing his public embarrassment, especially after the efforts he made for the working class post-recovery, was inexcusable.
In terms of his representation of Mr Ogle during an internal grievance procedure, Mr Douglas hinted at indirect remarks undermining Ogle’s senior position in the Republic of Ireland as a fabricated role arranged by the ex-general secretary of the union, Len McCluskey.
One document showcased a quote from Mr McCluskey, recorded verbatim, that suggested something suspicious was afoot, potentially involving a power shift, cancer, or personal bias.
In a narrative of a virtual conversation with Mr Hughes, the Welsh secretary of the union, Mr Douglas revealed that after Mr Ogle expressed interest in the Republic of Ireland regional secretary position, Hughes communicated his concern about Ogle pursuing the role. He suggested to Ogle that the prospect of his application was causing unease at the headquarters, and his interview presence would be undesirable.
In his statement, Mr Hughes made a suggestion of possibly negotiating an agreement, according to Mr Douglas. The insinuation, as understood by the onlooker, was leaning towards a proposed exit plan. Despite failing in his attempt at a job interview in London in November 2022, Mr Ogle was present. The evidence provided earlier in the year by the claimant revealed his objection to the inclusion of the union’s previous chair, Tony Woodhouse, in the interview panel. This objection stemmed from an address given by Mr Woodhouse at a union assembly two months prior, which, according to Mr Ogle, contained defamatory remarks against him. The claimant asserts that Mr Woodhouse’s recusal did not prevent the interview process from being compromised.
In the aftermath of Mr Ogle’s unsuccessful job application, a meeting was organised between Mr Douglas, Mr Hughes, and Barbara Kielim, head of HR for the union, at the London headquarters of Unite. In Mr Douglas’ words, the meeting veered towards the suggestion of an exit scheme, which had no appeal to Brendan.
The cause for concern for Mr Ogle was the threat of losing a death-in-service policy, valued at five times his yearly salary. This sparked fears over the financial future of his family should his cancer resurface, Mr Douglas reported. The mention of securing an annuity equal to five times the annual salary for a death policy was noted to be an exceedingly large sum of money, leading to complications in discussions. After requesting a written commitment, Mr Douglas reported they are still awaiting this.
In the defendant’s response, Mark Harty SC, acting under the guidance of Karyn Harty of Dentons Solicitors, countered Mr Douglas’s assertion of having reference to off-the record discussions in his evidence, a claim denied by the witness. Mr Harty’s cross-examination included a question aimed at getting Mr Douglas to admit that the roles sought by Mr Ogle, as a chief officer tasked with directing political campaigns and liaising with politicians in Ireland, were now defunct. In response to this, Mr Douglas emphasised that there was never a declaration that these roles were no longer needed or that there had been a change in strategy. He described his feelings of unproductive exchanges as akin to playing a futile game of handball with a sponge. When questioned about who had taken over Mr Ogle’s political role, a query to which Mr Douglas did not have an answer, Mr Harty countered with a question concerning his political awareness.
Mr Douglas admitted that although he’s a fan of football, he didn’t know the specifics of the recent Manchester United match. According to Mr Harty, Brendan Ogle was previously highly noticeable in his role. Yet, a witness claimed that Unite, the organisation, have faded from prominence. Mr Harty suggested that this may have been a strategic move to shift focus onto internal union affairs. Mr Douglas swiftly questioned whether this was an attempt to undermine Brendan Ogle.
Mary-Paula Guinness, the complainant’s counsel, revealed that her legal representative, Peter Murphy from McInnes Dunne Murphy, had written a letter to Sharon Graham, Unite’s general secretary, on Tuesday. He requested her to voluntarily attend and provide evidence. Elizabeth Spelman, the presiding officer, gave Ms Graham until Friday of this week to reply; after that, Ms Guinness’s application for a witness summons would be considered. The hearing was initially planned for this Wednesday and Thursday, but these dates have been postponed.
Mr Ogle testified earlier this year that a work colleague in Dublin, Tom Fitzgerald, informed him on August 22nd, 2022, that Sharon Graham, the union’s general secretary, was seeking a fresh approach for Ireland. This plan notably excluded Mr Ogle. It was divulged that Mr Fitzgerald outlined the strategy on a whiteboard. Junior Coss, secretary of the Unite branch in ESB Energy, confirmed this when he recalled seeing Mr Ogle’s name omitted from the whiteboard plan during a meeting at Mr Fitzgerald’s office on August 25th, 2022.
Mr Coss stated there had been some friction within the ESB branch and when the matter was discussed, Mr Fitzgerald had a new plan for moving forward, which did not include Mr Ogle. “Upon noticing Mr Ogle’s name was absent from the board, I questioned, ‘What about Brendan Ogle?’” Mr Coss disclosed. Mr Fitzgerald’s response was that Mr Ogle had no place in the new strategy and suggested he would retire gradually, Mr Coss added.
Mr Harty later commented that once more, Mr Fitzgerald was being depicted akin to a “Bond villain”, stating his intentions, a portrayal that reflects a description he made in relation to a comparable account given by Mr Ogle.
During a subsequent rendezvous in February 2023 in Dundalk involving the union’s regional officer, Jackie Pollock, Mr Harty enquired why Mr Ogle could not engage in the ESB issues. Mr Pollock responded by stating this was beyond his control, as the matter pertaining to Brendan was being decided by London, and there was little he could do.
Representing the respondent union, Mr Harty addressed Mr Coss, stating that Tom Fitzgerald doesn’t refute if he were present at the office on August 25, he might have noticed the whiteboard; he doesn’t remember analysing any of it whatsoever. Mr Harty was confident that Mr Fitzgerald neither would have nor did he state what you alleged he did.
He further challenged Mr Coss, asserting that his memory regarding the entire meeting was mistaken. Mr Coss vehemently denied this.
He additionally stated that Mr Coss’s report about Mr Fitzgerald’s announcement of Mr Ogle’s gradual removal and eventual retirement weren’t accurate.
To this, Mr Coss maintained, “Mr Harty, I am aware of the facts.”
In response, Mr Harty highlighted Mr Coss’s close relationship with Brendan Ogle. Mr Coss brushed off this insinuation, stating that his acquaintance with Brendan Ogle was no different than that with any other union member. “We are comrades, we collaborate, similar to Tom Fitzgerald, we are mates,” Mr Coss clarified.