Firstly, there is not nearly enough information about this particular situation for me to pass judgement directly. Those who are passing judgement really aren't helping, IMHO.
At my company, the FDM agreement with our pilots union is pretty solid in terms of protecting pilot identity. Union gatekeepers are the only persons who have access to crew identy in our program. While I believe we have a management commitment that would "do the right thing" when the crew of a significant event were identified, I also understand why our pilot group wants nothing to do with that in our FDM process. Past performance by past management probably has alot to do with that perception, and only through a long term management commitment that is truly non-punitive, will that perception ever change.
In my opinion, pilot unions, operations managers and even FDM programs themselves should not be in the business of protecting or sheltering rogue pilots. But I also believe that the number of rogue pilots is a very small percentage of the total. The vast majority are professionals who take their safety commitments seriously. So, when events are discovered (through FDM or any other means) that point to a possible deficiency in skills and/or knowledge, the program should be focussed on helping the individuals involved to gain the necessary skills and knowledge to prevent a recurrence of the event. But if that process identifies an individual who feels they haven't done anything wrong; who refuses to change; or who is un-trainable; there has to be a way to prevent that individual from being in a position where they could threaten the safety of the operation. IMHO, the only way such a process could ever be accepted is if it included peer involvement (i.e. the union sits at the table) from the outset to ensure that the process is fair and reasonable. It most certainly requires a delicate touch if you're going to do it right. But for the sake of all concerned, it's also important that it be done.