Something is glaringly wrong at Guardamangia Hill, where the state broadcaster has its main offices and studios. And it is not just about “due impartiality” in news and current affairs programmes.
The industrial tribunal award, which found that former CEO John Bundy was unfairly dismissed, raises serious questions about how PBS goes about its business. One can only hope other government entities are not run in the same manner.
The tribunal’s decision on compensation is worrying and there does not seem to be a detailed explanation of how it arrived to the sum of €226,488.98. It is not bound to but, given the quantum, it would have put many minds at rest. Usually, such compensation is based on the real losses incurred.
The amount is one aspect on which PBS can base its appeal from the award.
On the basis of the evidence heard, one can hardly disagree with the tribunal’s conclusion that the man was unfairly dismissed. He was judged by the same board of directors that issued the charges against him and was not given the opportunity to adequately defend himself.
The board had no confidence in Bundy and resolved to terminate his contract even before commissioning an audit firm to investigate a deal for leased cars that was ostensibly what led to the dismissal. The tribunal also noted that although the audit report only referred to the procurement process, the letter of termination of employment listed eight shortcomings.
Describing it as “the biggest anomaly”, the tribunal admitted it could not accept that a person engaged on a work contract would not face disciplinary proceedings.
At the time, the board was chaired by Tonio Portughese, who has a long career in industrial relations, even occupying a very senior position in the HR department of the Malta branch of a multinational company and serving as chairman of the industrial tribunal and of JobsPlus’s forerunner, ETC. The government has just appointed him chairman of the employment relations board.
So the PBS board should have known better when dealing with Bundy. Why it felt it had to proceed in the way it did remains unclear.
Was it a matter of incompatibility? Bundy had been headhunted. One would like to think that the person who had offered him the job carried a lot of weight and also had a say in the choice of directors. Though not necessarily.
Or was it perhaps somebody getting uncomfortable with the information Bundy was becoming privy to as CEO? We learn from the award that he spoke about how Malta covered the expenses of four countries participating in the 2016 Junior Eurovision Song Contest held here. He also mentioned an invoice of €1,477.20 for lunches and dinners in the span of 10 days. There were also plans for board meetings to be held in a luxury hotel in Gozo.
If a robust system of checks and balances were in place, such ‘abuse’ was unlikely to happen.
The answer why it did may lie in the award, which comments that an administrative irregularity – the leasing of the vehicles – was being implemented by a number of people in senior positions and with the organisation’s leadership failing to take the necessary action.
The award paints a picture of a fish rotting from the head. Before any more taxpayer’s money goes down the drain, it would not be amiss for the National Audit Office to have a very thorough look at what is happening at Broadcasting House.