����ý

The PSNI's former head of firearms and explosives singled out a member of staff because of his trade union activities, a tribunal has ruled.

It awarded claimant Gavin Walsh £3,000 for injury to feelings after finding Nichola Murphy had made "unfounded allegations" about his integrity.

"We believe Ms Murphy was motivated by a desire to undermine the claimant in his Nipsa role," said panel members.

"He had been a thorn in her side for some months."

The tribunal panel heard the relationship between Ms Murphy and Mr Walsh became fractious and confrontational as a result of unrest and discontent within the PSNI's firearms branch.

Mr Walsh had tried to resolve the issues, but this was not to the liking of senior PSNI management, including Nichola Murphy, the tribunal panel was told.

The situation escalated when the claimant - who had worked for the police for more than 30 years - made an application to have his firearms certificate conditions varied.

Ms Murphy mistakenly alleged he had jumped the applications' queue by using his Nipsa union role within the firearms branch to obtain preferential treatment for his application, said the tribunal.

It said the allegations in an email she sent to Mr Walsh's Nipsa colleague were "damaging and defamatory".

However, when Ms Murphy later discovered he had not sought to jump the queue, she failed to tell his Nipsa colleague.

This showed "Ms Murphy had no regard for the damage she could have caused to the claimant's reputation", said the panel.

It also questioned why another person within the firearms branch had specifically picked out Mr Walsh's application from thousands of others, and brought it to Ms Murphy's attention.

The tribunal members said it was not credible that Ms Murphy could not remember which staff member had made her aware of the application form.

"As the respondent accepted, there were thousands of applications in the process and it seems more than unfortunate that the claimant's claim form was the one singled out for scrutiny in this way," said the panel.

They described Ms Murphy's actions as "completely inappropriate".

"We believe that this action was only taken because the claimant is a trade union representative and its sole or main purpose was to penalise the claimant for being such a representative," they said.

After a direct request from Ms Murphy to Nipsa, a union colleague took on Mr Walsh's trade union duties in the firearms branch, leaving him with less involvement there.

"We believe that Ms Murphy was motivated by a desire to undermine the claimant in his Nipsa role," said the panel members.

"He had been a thorn in her side for some months and this was an opportunity to discredit him in his role."