GO plc HR manager claims sexual harassment by director

A director of GO plc has filed an application in court to stop the company from taking disciplinary proceedings against him for alleged sexual harassment against the company's HR manager.

The director, Engineer Joseph Agius, has been accused by the HR manager, of sexual harassment.

Dr Chris Cilia, appearing for Mr Agius, told a court this morning that this was a very particular case that needed to be treated sensitively. The lawyer said that he was not doubting the credibility of the disciplinary board, but justice had to be seen to be done. His client was being accused of sexual harassing the chief officer, human resources. The department headed by this person was the same department which had to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.

Although the manager did not sign the documentation herself, everything was signed by her subordinates.

Mr Agius did not fear the proceedings, but he wanted the proceedings to be fair and that was why the warrant of prohibitory injunction had been sought, Dr Cilia said.

What was being proposed instead, was that the disciplinary board should be made up of a person nominated by the company, a person nominated by the union of the alleged victim and a chairman  nominated by the two people involved.

There was currently a situation, Dr Cilia said, where, according to the collective agreement, the board was nominated by the company through the HR manager. It would not be correct for people nominated by the alleged victim to be on the board where a guarantee of impartiality and independence was  needed.

Dr Cilia said Mr Agius was completely denying any wrong doing.

Dr Andrew Borg Cardona, representing the company, said that the
disciplinary proceedings were administered, in this instance, by the
Board of Directors and the HR manager had no authority to nominate
anyone, had not nominated anyone and, even in the future, due to a
change in procedure, would not nominate anyone to the Disciplinary Board
and Mr Agius's fears were therefore unfounded.

She was left out of these proceedings completely and saying otherwise was misleading the court.

Dr Cilia could not propose anything in these proceedings because the only power of the court was to stop and not make suggestions.

The process used for the disciplinary board was the one laid down in the collective agreement. That was a contract that bound the employees and one could not have anyone proposing something else.

The court will take a decision on the application tomorrow.