Paul Byrne, a journalist for Virgin Media, has commenced High Court proceedings in response to an internal disciplinary action initiated by his employer. Byrne, who serves as the company’s southern correspondent, was suspended following a live report which he issued on February 9 regarding a boy’s death in Co Waterford.
The suspension arose after it was revealed that the information he relayed in the broadcast was incorrect, despite his belief at the time of its validity. He further contends that the same information was disseminated by different media outlets. Byrne has been accused by his employer of breaching the company’s news guidelines and production handbook due to his failure to discuss the information with his superior prior to the broadcast.
Byrne disputes these charges and argues that his employer’s disciplinary approach is flawed, punitive, excessive, and should be disregarded. He asserts that the procedure lacks credibility and violates his contractual rights. Byrne seeks a High Court injunction to halt Virgin Media Ireland Ltd and Virgin Media Television Limited from proceeding with the disciplinary action. He is also demanding for his salary and benefits to be paid during his suspension and for his role not to be delegated to another person.
Virgin Media counters Byrne’s allegations about them and their disciplinary procedure in their correspondence to the courts. Arguing from their standpoint as a public broadcaster, they perceive the claimed violation to be severe and have advised Byrne about the necessity to avoid recurrence. In court, Byrne’s lawyer Eoin Clifford SC, maintains that the employer’s disciplinary process is irredeemably flawed and should be invalidated. It was revealed that on the February 9 broadcast, Byrne claimed that the Gardaí were considering the possibility that the deceased boy had been drowned and subsequently placed in a car as part of their investigation.
Mr Byrne’s client made the accusation after verification from at least two reputable sources and the information was subsequently published by two other media centres. However, the facts were later proven incorrect, leading to the suspension with full pay of Mr Byrne from his profession.
The accusation against his client, according to counsel, was breaching the employer’s rules by not conferring with the news producer about the report prior to its broadcast. However, the argument of Mr Byrne is that discussions with the producer in advance were not obligatory.
No mandatory rule or contract term has been breached by Mr Byrne, the counsel added. His client sought to involve a trade union representative, Damien Tiernan from the National Union of Journalists, during the inquiry phase, his lawyer stated. As per the defendants’ grievance and disciplinary processes, Mr Byrne has the right to be accompanied at such meetings by a working colleague or a recognised trade union representative.
However, the employer didn’t permit Mr Tiernan to be a part of the meeting as he doesn’t serve the defendants. Mr Byrne attended a meeting in isolation and now challenges the preciseness of the meeting’s minutes.
Mr Justice Mark Sanfey permitted Mr Byrne to serve the defendants short notice of the proceedings on Tuesday. The judge recommended both parties to resolve their issues outside the court after hearing from one side. The case will be revisited next week.
The counsel disclosed his client’s worry for his reputation as he is a significant figure in the public eye. Byrne received initial information about his suspension with full payments, but that’s no longer valid. The claim from the journalist was presented in front of Mr Sanfey.
An adverse judgement against the plaintiff at the disciplinary meeting, originally scheduled in Limerick and postponed by a week upon the defendants’ agreement, could lead to Mr Byrne’s dismissal. The meeting could still take place, even in the absence of Mr Byrne, who cannot attend due to health issues as per a medical report submitted to the defendants.