The imminent High Court hearing marks the next stage in the contentious dismissal of Prof Philip Nolan, the former director general of the Science Foundation Ireland (SFI). The state agency is set to defend its decision, which Nolan’s legal team has argued lacks any conceivable justification and did not follow fair procesdures.
The public research body confirmed on Tuesday 28th May that Prof Nolan was no longer its director general, announcing the appointment of an interim head. Nolan filed a High Court application two days later to halt his dismissal, the continuation of which will be heard on Tuesday.
At an earlier hearing, SFI’s counsel stated that the sole grounds for termination was rooted in the explicit terms of his written contract. Rather than instigating disciplinary proceedings, the board chose to act on the perceived ruin of relations between Nolan and his executive management team, allegedly leading to the dysfunction of the organisation. The agency, with a workforce of 120 individuals and a yearly budget of €240 million, believes this to be the case.
During two brief hearings at the end of May, fresh information emerged about five protected disclosures against Nolan, submitted by four high-level managers and another employee, with four being filed on the same day in December 2023.
Nolan maintains that his appointment as “CEO designate” of a new entity, formed by merging SFI and the Irish Research Council in the prior May, acted as a government endorsement of his leadership and approach. As he sees it, this fuelled the perception of the board and executive committee that they were being marginalized and stripped of power.
Tom Mallon SC’s independent inquiry into the allegations of misconduct found Nolan not at fault for violating corporate governance and made no findings of misconduct or bullying on his part. While Nolan has firmly rejected all allegations and critiqued the procedure, he did confirm “inappropriate behaviour” towards the concerned managers, with two senior staff experiencing it to a higher degree.
The investigation report delivered to the protected disclosure group, a subcommittee of the board consisting of three members, suggested possible disciplinary action. Although the finding was accepted by the board, Nolan’s attempts at mediation were unsuccessful as he passionately denied all accusations against him.
Following an ex-parte application, Judge Rory Mulcahy ruled in Mr Nolan’s favour, permitting him to retain his role, albeit not returning physically to the organisation until his High Court application is addressed on Tuesday. Nolan expressed shock in his court statement that the PDG report was adopted by the board without any consultation with him.
Nolan displayed his participation in the process in good faith, but recent events showcase this as an intentional endeavour to force him out of SFI. The inquiry team significantly ignored witnesses from Mazars and Praesta consulting firms who had observed multiple interactions between him and the executive panel. The latter were involved by Nolan as executive mentors to facilitate better teamwork.
On the issue of leaks, Nolan suspects an insider at SFI, pointing to the media’s detailed reporting which alludes to the presence or access of somebody to the investigative report and/or the PDG report. This was restricted to only board members and the informants who lodged confidential complaints against him.
Nolan noted the recurrent use of the phrase ‘medical leave’, encapsulated in inverted commas, as a dubious hint to question the credibility of his illness. He criticised SFI’s damage control measures via the deputy director’s email to the staff, failing to confront the leakage of the confidential report, and making no efforts to safeguard his reputation.
The termination email from chairman Prof Peter Clinch arrived on the evening of May 27th following a board meeting unattended by Nolan. The implications of the investigation report and the PDG conclusions were discussed. In a letter made public in court, the board expressed grave worries about the foundation’s current functioning, emphasising a serious threat to the foundation’s statutory duties.
The report pointed out that there were “no instances of bullying or violations of excellent corporate management against you, however, the PDG proposed to instigate disciplinary action against you on account of the inappropriate behaviour identified in the investigation findings, which we believe you disagree with”.
Clinch voiced that the board needed to decide if it was beneficial for SFI “to extend this issue and the conflict it spawned, which included the erosion of trust at the executive level that poses a significant risk to the function of the foundation as per its statutory obligations”.
The board deduced, “it is not to the advantage of either the foundation or yourself to kickstart a disciplinary procedure on the basis of the PDG’s report, yet it can’t overlook the deterioration in the relationship between you and the executive committee”. The operation of SFI management “is not at its finest” and it couldn’t permit the prevailing circumstances to persist.
“Your stance of repudiation towards some findings of the investigation report has been acknowledged, but the board has resolved, regrettably, that termination of your employment contract… is the suitable step”, appended the letter.
The chairman communicated that SFI would reach out to Maynooth University to nullify a secondment agreement, however, Nolan “may prefer to inform them in advance that you will be returning”. Nolan holds a permanent research post at the university, which facilitates his re-entry there. He inaugurated his academic profession at UCD, subsequently becoming president of MU prior to heading SFI.
What’s next
At one stage, Nolan argued that due to the approach where he was segregated from and by the board, he had grown “perceptibly apprehensive that any disciplinary procedure might be prejudiced, biased, predestined and unfair to me”.
In his affidavit, he stated: “It’s a certainty that if SFI is allowed to end my employment, I will not retain my position as the CEO designate of Research Ireland and consequently will not be assigned” the new role.
He contended, however, that there was no valid or substantial reason as to why he couldn’t resume his job “and carry on with it until the merger into Research Ireland happens”.
“The SFI community it serves “will undergo a grave setback if the merger is hindered or cancelled”, he stressed. “As long as I, arguably the most qualified individual for Director General, am not appointed, the organisation and the research system will continue to languish.”
The government is allegedly in favour of the merger as they believe it to be a crucial and strategic move to boost upcoming economic progress and elevate Ireland’s competitiveness. Patrick O’Donovan, the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science’s spokesperson revealed that the legislation to form ‘Taighde Éireann – Research Ireland’ is approaching the end of the necessary legislative steps in Oireachtas.
The official launch date of this newly formed agency will be made public by the Minister via additional legislation once the main legislation has been officially approved. However, he did not think it was appropriate to discuss any possible future arrangements at the present time. The spokesperson did not provide any information on whether Nolan will retain his position as the appointed chief executive of the new entity.