‘We will continue the fight against bullying company’

‘We feel it contributed hugely to his death,’ said Jan Garlick, his sister-in-law.

Mr Garlick died at the end of last year at the age of 55. He had been fired by Sark Shipping in August, less than two years after he had been taken on.

Prior to his death, Mr Garlick had begun a claim for unfair dismissal against the firm.

The family continued this fight, with his brother, retired chemical engineer Stephen, leading the claim despite having a personal battle with cancer for the second time.

The claim went before an employment tribunal in Guernsey on 18 June, and Isle of Sark Shipping did not contest it. Because of that, no evidence was heard, but the panel decided that his dismissal was unfair.

Paul’s son Matthew, acting as an executor of his estate, had brought the claim and Stephen represented Matthew at the hearing.

Stephen Garlick said that while the family was pleased that the employment tribunal had found in favour of his brother, they were disappointed that this was not based on evidence.

Mr Garlick said that only sworn statements could be taken as evidence, not simply a statement that he had submitted that was prepared by the family’s advocate. ‘All they had was a submission, not evidence, because it wasn’t given under oath,’ he said.

But more than that, the family is aggrieved that complaints lodged by Paul Garlick have never been addressed by Isle of Sark Shipping.

Stephen Garlick said he wants someone to be held accountable for the way his brother was treated.

He has provided the Guernsey Press with documents relating to the complaints made by his brother and the requests for information made by the family following his dismissal and, later, his death.

None of these have been addressed, said Stephen Garlick, who said his request for a disclosure of information under the data protection act has been ignored.

‘It’s all about suppression and “we don’t want any of this to get out”,’ said Mr Garlick.

Mrs Garlick felt that the chairman of the tribunal was ‘led’ by Isle of Sark Shipping’s legal representative, Advocate Louise Hall, in a case management meeting two days before the hearing.

She and her husband had been told that IOSS would vacate that pre-hearing meeting and would not be defending the claim.

They felt they could handle the online meeting and so their advocate was not present, but despite what they had been led to expect, Advocate Hall was involved. ‘I feel very strongly that Advocate Hall led the chairman,’ said Mrs Garlick. ‘He was looking like a lost puppy.’

As a result, the chairman sent a letter to the parties in which he said that since IOSS was not going to contest the claim, he indicated that there was already enough evidence for a finding of unfair dismissal. ‘The chairman had already made up his mind [before the hearing],’ added Mr Garlick.

What aggravated the family more was the comment by IOSS that it was not contesting the claim to ‘avoid causing the family stress’.

‘They’d already caused us stress by their devious actions,’ said Mrs Garlick.

‘But if they’d said it was all true and they had dismissed Paul unfairly they would have had to accept culpability. But at the moment it’s a decision that’s been thrust on them by the chairman.

‘Because of the severity of the suppression it feels as though they have got away with it.’

Matthew Garlick, 25, said he found some aspects of the tribunal particularly annoying.

‘From the start they were using us as an excuse, as if we were too emotional and not thinking straight,’ he said.

‘As a group, we all wanted to clear my dad’s name.’

Given that the judgment went in their favour, Stephen Garlick said that they are not going to lodge an appeal.

‘We’re not going to appeal. We will accept the judgment, but that’s not to say we will not be pursuing other avenues open to us, such as a civil action,’ he said.

‘The amount of secrecy that was involved was very very concerning to me as someone who values good corporate governance.’

See today's Guernsey Press for the detailed story