FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR18154/04/TB
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant, herein referred to as the worker, commenced employment with the North Western Health Board as an Ambulance Driver and was promoted to Lead Ambulance Driver in 1988, a position he held until he was suspended from duties in February 2003. On the 20th of February the worker was the Lead Ambulance Driver in a crew that responded to two emergency calls on that day. Due to a serious of issues surrounding the emergency calls, the Health Board proceeded with an investigation into the events of that day. On receipt of the investigation report the worker was dismissed from his position. Following an appeal the worker was reinstated as a Mini Bus Driver and relocated, adding 70 miles on to his journey.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His findings and recommendation issued on the 19th of November, 2004, as follows:
- “The claimant is seeking that the decision to remove him from the Ambulance duties should be reversed. The Health Board arrived at that decision after considering the report of the senior and independent investigation team.
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
On the 6th of December, 2004, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on the grounds that the Rights Commissioner did not take into consideration denial by the Health Board of the worker's right to know who the authors were and the nature of the accusation. The denial of his right to representation and his inability to question his accusers during the investigation, also the complete disparity in punishment to two members of the same crew during the same incident. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of May, 2005. - “The claimant is seeking that the decision to remove him from the Ambulance duties should be reversed. The Health Board arrived at that decision after considering the report of the senior and independent investigation team.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers supervisor erred when she refused to meet with the crew following the incidents. The crew never found out what the complaint was until the actual investigation. The supervisor further erred when she failed to inform the men that they had a right to representation. From these two errors came the decision to suspend the worker and the subsequent decision to investigate the matter. In the investigation itself the worker and other crew member were not afforded the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, had they been allowed to, the Union contends that certain conclusions would be changed.
2. The worker has an excellent record with letters of gratitude and congratulations spanning over thirty years. The worker does not pose a threat to any patient. The Board could have put him back under supervision just as they did with the other crew member without fear for the safety of the patients.
3. The Union requests that the Court set aside the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner given that the full facts were not put before him and the Court is asked to consider issuing a recommendation which would see the worker returned to front line duty in the service that he loves and has served for well over thirty years.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The investigation team recommended that the Health Board, in accordance with it's personnel and disciplinary procedures, take whatever action is deemed necessary.
2. The Health Board, on receipt of the written evidence deemed that the events surrounding this case and the role played by the worker mounted to gross misconduct and he was subsequently dismissed. However, following an appeal, the worker was reinstated as a mini-bus driver and relocated to Carrick on Shannon.
3. The N.W.H.B has acted in accordance with it's disciplinary policy and procedures at all times. The Health Board requests that the Court rejects the worker's appeal.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions in this case, as well as the report of the investigation team convened to examine the circumstances and events of the 20th February 2003.
Bearing in mind, in particular, the panel's recommendations set out in bullet point form on page 18 of its report, it is the view of the Court that :
-the head EMT acted on the day in an unprofessional manner
-the sanctions taken by the (then) Health Board against him, following the passing back to it by the panel of this aspect of the case, were too severe
The Court is of the view that he should be restored to the Ambulance Service, but as an EMT, from the date of his return to work from sick leave. He should be given all the necessary re-training and other supports as recommended by the investigating team .
The Court so decides and varies the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
15th July, 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.