Disingenuous Arts Council & its direct influence on EAT case

national | miscellaneous | news report Friday October 04, 2002 23:51 by Mark Black

'it may as well have been the employer'

An adjournment was sought to join the Arts Council as defendants in proceedings at a recent employment tribunal. The case was brought by Stella Coffey, its former chief executive, against the Artists Association of Ireland (AAI). The opening-type statement described the case as rooted in the AAI’s difficulties with the Arts Council, which disingenuously rejected the AAI’s 2000 accounts and withheld a significant part of its funding leading to a crisis. A flawed consultant’s report - writer was introduced by the Arts Council - was followed slavishly by the AAI board and resulted in the chief executive being made redundant. ‘The direct influence of the Arts Council in the AAI’s affairs’ is of great relevance now that ‘the AAI appears to be closing down its doors’ stated Coffey’s counsel as he sought to join the Arts Council in the proceedings. His request was refused as was his request to appeal the

DISINGENUOUS ARTS COUNCIL & ITS DIRECT INFLUENCE ON EAT CASE

The Arts Council wielded such power, according to barrister Michael McNamee, that it may as well have been the employer, an employment tribunal heard on Tuesday (2/10/2002) as McNamee sought an adjournment in order to join the Arts Council in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) proceedings. In supporting his request he presented a letter from the Arts Council to the claimant, Stella Coffey, former chief executive of the Artists Association of Ireland, indicating it would deliver data sought by her under the Data Protection Act on 4 October, that is, the day following the hearing. The case brought by Coffey against the Artists Association of Ireland (AAI) claimed constructive dismissal but the Tribunal’s Chair had decided at an earlier sitting this year to deal first with the redundancy issue.

McNamee’s opening-type statement described the case as rooted in the AAI’s difficulties with the Arts Council. He noted that the Arts Council was disingenuous in rejecting the AAI’s 2000 accounts and stated that the AAI’s crisis in November 2001 was contributed to by the Arts Council’s witholding of a significant part of the AAI’s funding. Ultimately, a consultant who carried out a review made recommendations, the first of which was to make three roles, including chief executive, redundant. The consultant was introduced to the AAI by the Arts Council and his recommendations were followed slavishly by the AAI board. McNamee spoke further of the relevance of ‘the direct influence of the Arts Council in the AAI’s affairs’ now that ‘the AAI appears to be closing its doors’. His request for an adjournment to join the Arts Council was refused as was his subsequent request for an adjournment to appeal the refusal in the circuit court.

The consultant, Frank Scott Lennon in his evidence, noted that brevity was a distinguishing feature of his work but he had to provide an additional document ‘Logic behind recommendations’ because his actual report contained no analysis. He also said in evidence that in his opinion the voluntary board of AAI ‘wasn’t up to it’ - this despite his report recommending the board take on a management role in AAI by assuming some of the redundant chief executive role. Scott Lennon’s failure to consult with the chief executive blocked access to knowledge according to Coffey’s counsel.

McNamee noted that the AAI board at the time of the crisis was susceptibe to advice, and by Scott Lennon’s own admission, his report would be heavily relied on by the board. The action taken on the foot of this flawed report deprived AAI of its CEO and it is arguable that, if the chief executive were kept on, the organisation would not have closed its doors in March, stated McNamee. AAI’s closing statement declared that even if the redundancy were unfair it doesn’t matter as the compary had ceased trading on 8 March. The tribunal reserved its judgement