As students across Fermanagh make decisions regarding their academic future when they receive their GCSE results today (Thursday), tensions have reignited between South West College and the University and College Union (UCU) following accusations of covert email monitoring during a previous industrial dispute.

The controversy centres on a directive issued by South West College Principal and Chief Executive Celine McCartan in October 2023, which the UCU claims was an attempt to monitor union members’ communications with the media, specifically The Impartial Reporter.

Now in a letter, Ms. McCartan has been told by UCU Northern Ireland Regional Official Katharine Clarke that “the damage done to trust between you and the staff may now be irreparable”.

New documents obtained by this newspaper reveal that Ms. McCartan has been accused by UCU of authorising an investigation that potentially breached data protection laws and undermined legitimate trade union activities. Ms.

McCartan, however, denies any wrongdoing.

In a letter dated June 24, Ms. Clarke accused Ms. McCartan of authorising an investigation into email logs without proper justification.

The investigation was initiated on October 17, 2023, with instructions given to the IT department to identify any correspondence sent to The Impartial Reporter.

Ms. Clarke argued that this action could constitute a serious violation of privacy, aimed at deterring union members from engaging with the press.

In a letter to UCU members following the revelations in The Impartial Reporter in June , Ms. Clarke told members that the work email system is the “employer’s property”.

“However, that does not entitle the employer to just snoop around your inbox and sent items whenever the fancy takes them.”

Ms. Clarke’s concerns were heightened by an email from Ms. Sharon McGrath on October 18, 2023, informing staff that outbound emails would be temporarily suspended to investigate a “potential data breach.”

In a letter to Ms. McCartan she asked: “Please explain why you were monitoring emails of union members to the Impartial Reporter which undoubtedly concerned the industrial dispute? “Please specify what you intended to do with the information you were trying to gather?

“Can you also confirm whether your instruction was issued with the knowledge and authority of the college Governing Body?”

In response, Ms. McCartan denied any wrongdoing, asserting that the investigation was justified and conducted in line with the College’s Internet, E-Mail Usage, and Monitoring Policy and the Employee Standards Policy.

She explained that the investigation was initiated due to concerns about the potential unauthorised disclosure of internal communications and personal information to external parties. Ms.

McCartan emphasised that the review focused solely on email logs, not the content, and was necessary to determine if a data protection breach had occurred.

“The investigation was prompted by concerns raised by staff members about information, including personal information, being provided to external parties, specifically The Impartial Reporter”, Ms. McCartan wrote. She claimed that the investigation did not target specific individuals or groups and did not interfere with legitimate trade union activity.

“I wish to stress that the College, and I personally, have taken this responsibility most seriously and have put thought, time and effort into seeking a satisfactory outcome to the dispute. I can reassure you that this was a genuine consideration at the time.

Ms. Clarke’s letter had warned that Ms.McCartan’s actions could damage trust between the college’s leadership and its staff.

In her letter, she said: “I must advise that aside from the range of potential legislative breaches that might arise from your instruction, the damage done to trust between you and the staff within your employ may now be irreparable.

“Certainly, a more plausible and convincing explanation is necessary if the UCU and its members are to have confidence in your leadership moving forward.”

Ms. McCartan expressed a desire to move forward constructively, emphasising her commitment to maintaining positive relationships with union representatives.

She wrote: “As a fundamental objective, I have worked, like others, with the goal of building relationships with Trade Union representatives and other stakeholders on issues which serve the community, the College and staff, including UCU members.

In her response to Ms. McCartan, Ms.Clarke highlighted that the UCU had informed her in advance via a press release regarding the industrial action.

She argued that such matters are of public interest and cannot be reasonably treated as “corporate and commercially sensitive information,” Ms. Clarke stated: “Strike action nor redundancy are not processes shrouded in secrecy and cannot be reasonably treated as ‘corporate and commercially sensitive information.’ Union members are perfectly entitled to share information pertinent to a trade dispute, including their employer’s response to it, with the press.”

She warned that Ms. McCartan’s failure to acknowledge any errors could further erode the trust and esteem in which staff hold her.

Ms. Clarke concluded: “It is deeply disappointing you cannot recognise any errors of judgement. The explanations offered do not justify the monitoring that took place. “If you continue to hold to positions that appear so blatantly flawed, the story will continue to run and the esteem in which your staff hold you will be further eroded. Nobody responds well to their intelligence being insulted.”

In a detailed response to Ms. Clarke, Dr. Nicholas O’Shiel, Chairman of the Governing Body [GB] said it had reviewed the issues raised by the UCU, categorising them into two potential data breaches: the first concerning a possible unauthorised disclosure of personal data to The Impartial Reporter and the second related to the college’s investigation into the alleged breach.

Regarding the first potential data breach, Dr. O’Shiel notes, “The GB is satisfied that in circumstances where SWC receives an approach by a data subject who raises concerns about a potential breach, SWC should take appropriate steps to understand what occurred, preserve all evidence regarding any potential data breach, and mitigate any damage or risk of any future breach.”

On the second potential data breach, which involved a review of email traffic between South West College and The Impartial Reporter, Dr. O’Shiel states: “It appears reasonable that the review by necessity should entail a review of email traffic between SWC and the newspaper concerned, provided any such review is proportionate and necessary.”

Dr. O’Shiel concludes by defending the competency and integrity of the staff involved, stating: “The GB finds the comments regarding the competency and integrity of staff involved in establishing and containing a potential data breach to be unwarranted and unfair.”

Yesterday (Wednesday) Ms. Clarke said UCU are “strongly encouraging” members dissatisfied with the College’s handling of their data to lodge complaints with the Information Commissioner. When asked to comment on the latest tensions between the organisation and its staff, a spokeswoman for South West College said it had “nothing further to add”.