A decision by the industrial tribunal last week that found Education Minister Dolores Cristina unfairly caused the dismissal of a senior care home employee has raised some pertinent questions.
At face value Ms Cristina acted incorrectly when she effectively had Marisa Bartolo removed from her post as programme coordinator at a home for destitute girls.
On procedural grounds the tribunal found in favour of Ms Bartolo and in a country governed by the rule of law the decision has to be respected pending the outcome of any appeal.
But speaking to this newspaper a day after the ruling Ms Cristina defended her actions, quoting from a report drawn up by professionals who found that serious allegations made against Ms Bartolo had been “substantially proven”.
The report seems to have been scathing in its assessment of Ms Bartolo’s management style. A former policewoman, it is alleged she resorted to restraining techniques, such as the use of handcuffs, which ran contrary to the home’s philosophy of providing care for vulnerable girls.
Through her lawyer, Ms Bartolo has denied mistreating the girls and has threatened to institute libel proceedings against the minister.
On her part, Ms Cristina has to date refused to withdraw the allegations. Quite the contrary, the minister’s only reaction to the ruling so far is that she has “no regrets” because she “shouldered political, moral and personal responsibility when I protected vulnerable children”.
The crossfire has left unanswered questions which must be cleared up; for if Ms Cristina’s claims are correct, Ms Bartolo’s actions helped to contribute to the trauma suffered by these young girls.
Viewed from this perspective, the minister’s prompt action to dismiss the former policewoman could only be considered commendable and necessary since these girls are among society’s most vulnerable young people, with difficult backgrounds and traumatic life experiences.
Although laws and procedure governing treatment of employees should be followed, it would be most unfortunate if a minister did not have the faculty to remove someone from their post – or at least have them suspended – if there are good grounds for believing that vulnerable people are at risk.
This does not mean that ministers should have overriding powers to dismiss workers at a whim or that employees should not have the right to defend themselves. On the contrary, the law should be changed to allow for a more expedient decision-making process in circumstances where the fate of vulnerable individuals is at stake.
But the case does raise other questions. When Ms Bartolo was given the job, her employers at the Conservatorio Vincenzo Bugeja knew she had 26 years’ experience in the police force.
They should have gone into whether a former policewoman is the most appropriate professional to handle young rebellious girls with social problems. Vital considerations are a person’s outlook on misbehaviour as well as their views on ensuring discipline.
Are the correct recruitment procedures in place to ensure that people with the right background and disposition are appointed to posts dealing with vulnerable people?
It is an unfortunate fact that despite the sterling work undertaken by many who work with vulnerable people, there are others who display an intolerant attitude towards those with difficult backgrounds or situations.
It is all the more important, therefore, to put structures in place to ensure society’s weakest are protected and nurtured, so that they may be given an opportunity to have a crack at life and play a worthwhile role in society.