Suzanne Picton, a woman who raised allegations of financial imprudence against the youth charity she worked for, has been granted €75,000 by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) as recompense for being unfairly penalised. Ms. Picton’s role was the financial controller and administrator at Matt Talbot Adolescent Services Clg in Cork, a role she held from May 2009 till February 2022 when her position was made redundant.
Matt Talbot is an organisation that provides a community-based education programme for youths facing social issues that could potentially lead to drug abuse and criminal activities. The WRC was informed in the previous year of Ms. Picton’s protected exposures to the Health Service Executive (HSE) that pertained to poor governance, procurement issues, questionable managerial decisions, and decisions concerning the dispersal of public and charity funds.
In her capacity as a certified public accountant, Ms. Picton expressed profound qualms and highlighted her public and organisational responsibility. Specified in her claims were allegations of major overspending and lack of a proper procurement process for an expense in January 2022. At one instance, she cited an overly generous expenditure of €4,000 on legal services within a single month, equivalent to an annual expense.
Moreover, she pointed out that the then-CEO, despite his €70,000 salary, had no management background. The legal representative for the defence, Denis Collins BL, acknowledged the protected disclosure to the HSE but refuted any malicious intentions or confirmed wrongdoing.
Mr Collins conveyed that considerable transformations had already taken place in the organisation by August 2020, particularly in relation to protected disclosures. WRC adjudicator, Lefre de Burgh, concluded in a judgement shared this Wednesday, that Ms Picton had been subjected to penalties by her superior, the former CEO of the entity, and the board to some degree. De Burgh observed that the complainant was singled out, marginalised, and penalised with a reduction of her role as a direct consequence of her raising issues and making protected disclosures.
De Burgh pointed out that the charitable entity erred or refused to process Ms Picton’s application for pay restoration to which she was due. This act in itself, according to the adjudicator, was a form of penalisation. It was clearly comprehended that no individual benefitted at the expense of the organisation’s funds – there were no diversion of funds, no embezzlement, and certainly no personal gain, as highlighted by Ms De Burgh.