The Irish Times drafted requirements for a top job in Belfast so one of its journalists would be ruled out, a tribunal heard yesterday.
Ms Suzanne Breen was also warned documents relating to her case for alleged discrimination would only be given to her lawyers when it suited the newspaper, it was claimed.
As the hearing was adjourned until June, a barrister for Ms Breen accused The Irish Times's legal representatives of deliberately withholding evidence.
Mr Tony McGleenan, for the journalist, said: "This goes beyond mere drip-feeding discovery, which is reprehensible in any event."
Ms Breen, who worked in the paper's Belfast offices for a number of years, claims she was victimised and discriminated against on religious, sexual and political grounds. The case is centred around her non-appointment as deputy Northern editor in 2001, not being allowed to later act up when the editor was absent, and her subsequent failure to secure the post of Northern news editor.
Following delays in obtaining documents, Mr McGleenan claimed his client had been placed under tremendous strain. He insisted personnel files and an office diary relating to the period in question and which has yet to be located were essential to her case.
He told the Fair Employment Tribunal in Belfast: "The applicant's case in relation to the post of Northern news editor is that the job specification was drafted in such a way to exclude her."
After four days of legal arguments, tribunal chairman Mr Neil Drennan QC said he had been left with no alternative but to adjourn until June 4th.
Criticising The Irish Times's lawyers for "unreasonable" delays in delivering documents, he ordered costs for the time spent at the hearing so far to be paid to Ms Breen.
Although she is still employed by the paper, the journalist went off on stress-related illness after being transferred to Dublin against her will. But the hearing was told she returned to work in late January and, after her employers arranged medical checks, she has now been cleared to resume duties.
At the height of the dispute, Ms Breen also kept notes of an alleged meeting on March 27th, 2001 between herself, a union representative and Mr Michael Austen (then a senior member of The Irish Times's human resources department).
According to the journalist's record, she was warned by Mr Austen the paper would strongly deny any discrimination and would use senior counsel to fight her in any legal forum on either side of the Border, the tribunal heard.
In notes read out by her lawyer, she also alleged Mr Austen said: "The timing and nature of discovery would be done by the company to suit the company."
Ms Breen was transferred to Dublin as part of a cost-cutting exercise carried out by the paper. This led to the "bizarre" situation of staff from Dublin being sent north to cover news stories while she continued to commute from Belfast, it was claimed.
Lawyers for The Irish Times had applied to have the case adjourned, pending an independent investigation into the conduct of a former senior member of staff in Belfast.
The paper will deny any discrimination or victimisation when the full case is heard, arguing that it has a contractual right to move staff around.
Mr John O'Hara, acting for The Irish Times, confirmed that a 2001 office diary central to the case has not yet been found. Asked by Mr Drennan if a search for it had only just got under way, he replied: "I think your suspicions are correct."
But Mr O'Hara also insisted: "It's certainly premature to say they have identified serious shortcomings in discovery. They have raised perfectly legitimate questions." Although he accepted The Irish Times's solicitors could have done more to provide all relevant documents on time, the barrister denied any plot by the respondents. - (PA)