Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90664 Case Number: LCR13191 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the dismissal of a temporary attendant.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that in the circumstances the Board acted in a
reasonable and responsible manner.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90664 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13191
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 T0 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the dismissal of a temporary attendant.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker concerned was employed by the Board as a
temporary attendant on fixed term contracts at St. Vincent's
Hospital, Mountmellick since 28 March, 1988 (details supplied
to the Court). He was previously employed by the Board at
St. Fintan's Hospital, Portlaoise from March 1984 to March
1988 as a temporary nursing attendant.
2. On 19 October, 1989 the Hospital authorities were made
aware of allegations that involved a serious incident of
misconduct (details supplied to the Court) in relation to a
female worker. On investigating the allegations the Board
suspended the worker without pay on 20 October, 1989.
Following further consideration of the matter by the Board,
the Chief Executive Officer wrote to the worker concerned on
30 November, 1989 advising that having fully considered the
reports of the investigations to date, no further contracts
of employment would be offered to the worker.
3. A Court case was subsequently brought against the worker
by the Director of Public Prosecutions and held on 2 October,
1990 by the Circuit Court. Initially he was charged with
both common and indecent assault but the charge of common
assault was withdrawn and he was found not guilty in relation
to the indecent assault charge. The Union wrote to the
Labour Court on 15 November, 1990 seeking a hearing regarding
the dismissal of the worker under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 29 January, 1991 in Portlaoise.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned is 26 years old and is married with
2 children. Throughout his employment with the Board he has
had no disciplinary proceedings brought against him with the
exception of the present case. Indeed while employed at St.
Vincent's Psychiatric Hospital he was very involved in the
process of integration for patients at ward level. In
addition he has at various times been successful in panels
for temporary and permanent employment with the Board and
other employers.
2. Since the incident the worker and his family have
suffered enormously by the loss of his job. There was in
addition the trauma of the Court case which found him
innocent. He is now seeking another opportunity to work
having been unemployed since November, 1989. It is the
Union's contention that this worker suffered the ultimate
sanction because of his temporary status while the other male
worker who was a permanent employee is still employed by the
Board.
3. The worker recognises that his activity was untoward and
an apology from him was immediate. He stands by his
statement that there was no malicious intent at any time. The
public acrimony which he and his family have endured as a
result, lead them to feel that the punishment was out of
proportion to the crime. The Union are seeking re-engagement
in the circumstances. It should be noted that in a letter
from the Personnel Officer of 22 November, 1990 the worker is
presently on a panel for employment as an attendant at St.
Vincent's Hospital, Mountmellick (copy supplied to the
Court).
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's admitted conduct on 18 October, 1989, in
the company of another male employee against a female
employee was considered by the Board to be a gross misconduct
warranting termination of employment without previous
warning. His conduct generally in relation to this incident
is not compatible with employment as an attendant by the
Board. The obligation of trust is particularly important in
long stay hospitals where employee's work out of direct
supervision of superiors. In this connection the Board have
lost confidence in the worker's ability to live up to the
obligations of an attendant with the Board.
2. This case was investigated at length by the Board and it
was decided not to renew the workers contract of employment
after exhaustive inquiries had been made and every
opportunity was afforded the worker to represent his case to
management (details supplied to the Court). The Board views
this matter very seriously. The outcome of the criminal
proceedings have no affect on the Board's decision as it
investigated the case as presented.
3. The letter of 22 November, 1990 informing the worker of
his place on a panel for employment was an error and should
not in fact have been issued. For the reasons stated the
Board would not be prepared to re-employ the worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that in the circumstances the Board acted in a
reasonable and responsible manner.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th February, 1991 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman