With certain staff members not in attendance at meetings of Sligo County Council because of findings that they were bullied or subjected to inappropriate behaviour, the normal, informal, crossover of answers and questions would now be affected, the February monthly meeting of the council was told on Monday last.

The meeting heard that an investigation of allegations against Clr. Declan Bree had concluded that bullying had occurred in respect of three staff members, and that six staff members were subjected to inappropriate behaviour, which undermined their right to dignity at work, and two of the complainants were regarded as witnesses by the investigators.

Now, both the chairman and vicechairman of the county council as well as the Mayor and deputy mayor of Sligo, may have to be "provided with a proper standard of training to appreciate, detect and enforce" a Code of Conduct for all councillors.

The latest in this ongoing row between Clr. Bree and council staff emerged after chairman, Clr. Gerry Murray, indicated that Manager Hubert Kearns wished to comment on a statement he circulated to councillors about the matter on Friday last.

Mr. Kearns, in the circular dated January 29th to county and borough councillors, stated that as members were probably aware, an investigation into allegations of bullying, harassment and inappropriate behaviour made by a number of staff members against Clr. Bree had taken place, and the final report of the investigators issued toward the end of last year.

Outlining the background to the matter, Mr. Kearns stated that in December 2008, he received 13 written complaints from staff making allegations of bullying, harassment and inappropriate behaviour by Clr. Bree. This followed a number of incidents, including one at a meeting of Sligo Borough Council on November 3rd 2008.

Mr. Kearns stated that there was a legal obligation on every employer under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 to manage and conduct work activities in such a way as to ensure the safety, health and welfare at work of employees and to prevent any improper conduct or behaviour likely to put the safety, health of welfare at work of employees at risk.

Mr. Kearns added: "I was therefore obliged to deal with this matter in accordance with procedures set out in the 'Code of Practice for Employers and Employees on the Prevention and Resolution of Bullying at Work' published by the Health and Safety Authority pursuant to Section 60 of the 2005 Act, and the 'Policy on Dignity in the Workplace' adopted by Sligo Local Authorities."

The County Manager said that in accordance with the above policy and code, two complainants opted to have their complaints dealt with through informal process, and the remaining 11 complainants opted for formal investigation.

"In order to discharge my responsibility as employer of the staff concerned, an investigation was commissioned to establish the facts of the case and to make appropriate recommendations," the Manager stated.

He added: "The investigation, which commenced in January 2009, was carried out by Ms. Margaret Considine of Equity Consulting, and Patrick J. Cahill, Solicitor, both of whom have considerable experience in this field. These persons were appointed on the recommendation of the Local Government Management Services Board.

"The investigation was carried out in an entirely independent manner by the two investigators with no involvement whatsoever by myself as Manager.

"Following the completion of the investigation and in accordance with the rules of constitutional justice, all parties to the investigation were afforded an opportunity to appeal against the report and/or its findings, and in this regard were offered an opportunity to nominate an appropriately qualified person for consideration to hear appeals. None of the parties opted to appeal the findings of the investigators."

Mr. Kearns told councillors that the investigation concluded that bullying had occurred in respect of three staff members, that six staff members were subjected to inappropriate behaviour, which undermined their right to dignity at work, and two of the complainants were regarded as witnesses by the investigators.

Enclosing the final recommendations of the investigators for councillors, Mr. Kearns said that as there were privacy issues relative to the parties to the investigation, he was unable to disclose the full contents of the report. He added that he would, in particular, draw councillors' attention to the recommendations of the investigators.

Mr. Kearns said that in accordance with the first recommendation, and in order to discharge his statutory duty of care to the staff concerned, he had put certain measures in place, the result of which was that staff members concerned would not be in a position to attend council meetings, etc., unless or until this matter was resolved.

In relation to the second recommendation regarding training, Mr. Kearns said he was keen to discuss this with councillors and with this in mind, he was hoping to engage with members over the coming weeks to ascertain how it might be delivered, content, etc.

In relation to the third recommendation, which concerned disciplinary measures, Mr. Kearns said this matter was outside the control of the council and he had referred a copy of the investigation report to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for his consideration.

Mr. Kearns said he had put measures in place so that the staff members could not have any contact with Clr. Bree, and they could not attend at council meetings because they would be at the same meeting as Clr. Bree.

Mr. Kearns acknowledged that that would affect all councillors.

There were further recommendations regarding training and the management of meetings, and bullying at meetings, and Mr. Kearns said he was hoping to work with councillors in implementing that over the coming weeks, and he would welcome the views of councillors about how that training should take place.

Mr. Kearns went on to give councillors details of a letter from the Local Authority Professional Officers branch of SIPTU in which it instructed all of its members to have no further contact with Councillor Bree, with immediate effect.

Mr. Kearns said the upshot of all this was that the normal, informal, crossover of answers and questions would be affected and he would not be in a position to deal with questions from Clr. Bree. However, all council members who behaved themselves in accordance with the Code of Practice would be answered.

Mr. Kearns said it was not within his competence as Manager to resolve this, and the various parties involved, including council members, had a role to play.