FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST. ITAS HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY TERESA BULFIN) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. Ir36066/05/Mr
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. Ir36066/05/Mr. The dispute concerns an incident of alleged professional misconduct on the part of a
nurse employed by St Ita's hospital, Limerick. After an investigation into the incident the nurse was subsequently issued with an oral warning after a disciplinary hearing.
A subsequent independent review of the process concluded that the sanction of an oral warning was appropriate in the circumstances. The warning expired from the nurses record in January, 2006. The Union's position is that correct procedures were not followed by management in investigating the complaint or in the issuing of the warning. Management contend that they followed appropriate procedures at all times a view which it contends was affirmed by an independent review.
The issue of appealing the verbal warning was referred to a Rights Commissioner who issued his findings and recommendation on 8th June, 2006 as follows:
Findings
Having considered the extensive evidence available to me, I have concluded that the procedures used by management in dealing withthe complaint against the worker and her colleague, both as regards the original investigation of the complaint and the subsequent disciplinary hearing, were fully in line with both the principles of natural justice and the HSE's rievance and Disciplinary procedures.
I have also concluded, based on that evidence, that the findings of the original investigation were reasonable in the circumstances and that, after the formal disciplinary hearing had taken place, the issuing of an oral warning was also reasonable in the circumstances.
I notice that the oral warning was removed from the worker's file in January, 2006
Given all of the above, I am satisfied that I have no alternative but to find that this claim must fail.
Recommendation:
Accordingly I now recommend that the worker should accept that her appeal against the issuing of an oral warning fails.
The Worker was named in the Rights Commissioners Recommendation.
On 7th July, 2006 the Union appealed the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th June, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The investigation into the alleged incident was totally flawed. It was never confirmed that the worker in question had actually been seen carrying out the alleged offence.
2 Management also failed to follow correct procedures in carrying out of the original investigation and the subsequent issuing of the oral warning.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 A complaint was reported to management that the worker in question was witnessed to have been guilty of professional misconduct in her dealings with a patient. Management subsequently asked for a written statement of the complaint which was investigated thoroughly. There was then an independent review on the investigation which affirmed managment's decision in the issuing of the verbal warning. This was fully compliant at all times with the principles of natural justice and the Health Service Executive's own grievance and disciplinary procedures.
2 It is essential that all patients of the hospital are afforded the utmost dignity and respect by all staff. An official complaint of professional misconduct cannot be ignored. The issuing of a verbal warning was a lenient sanction in the circumstances.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, can see no reason to alter the recommendation made by the Rights Commissioner.
The decision of the Court is to uphold the Rights Commissioners Recommendation accordingly and to dismiss the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
13th July 2007______________________
ahDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.