FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SOUTH INFIRMARY - VICTORIA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH NURSES ORGANISATION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Various issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a Registered Nurse who initially worked on a temporary basis until she was invited to apply for a permanent position by Senior Nursing Management of the Victoria University Hospital. Following a recruitment and selection process she was offered and accepted the position of Staff Nurse in the Intensive Care Unit at the hospital in November 2007 on a probationary basis. Over the following months Management was made aware that there were some interpersonal difficulties between the Claimant and her colleagues, this situation escalated after allegations about her work practices were referred to Senior Management. Sanctions were imposed by Management and finally on 6th June 2008 her contract of employment was terminated with immediate effect. The Union contends that the Claimant was treated unfairly and Management were in breach of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures. The Hospital Management disputes this claim in its entirety.
On the 22nd October, 2008 the Worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th October, 2009.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Fair procedures were not followed and the Claimant was not given an opportunity to give her side in respect of the anonymous verbal complaints that Management received.
2. Management placed themselves as judge and jury in the investigation of the anonymous complaints and the basic principals of fair procedures were set aside on the grounds that the Claimant was still on probation.
3.Obtaining alternative employment proved difficult for the Claimant as she was not provided with satisfactory references for future prospective employers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The decision to terminate the Claimant's employment was only taken after she was given every possible support and opportunity to improve her performance, which was discussed with her as early as December 2007 when the services of the Employee Assistance Programme and that of the Occupational Health Department was suggested as a means to bring her work up to standard.
2. The Claimant was dismissed due to a number of patient safety concerns and her refusal to co-operate with the agreed Performance Improvement Plan.
3.The Hospital's decision to terminate the Claimant's employment within the probationary period was both justified and fair.
RECOMMENDATION:
In cases such as this it is not the function of the Court to substitute its view on the suitability of the Claimant for that of the employer. Rather, the Court's role is to consider if the employer's decision was arrived at bona fide and following fair procedures.
The Court notes that a major influence in the decision to terminate the Claimant's employment was her alleged failure to adhere to the performance improvement plan agreed at the meeting of 12th May 2008. It is further noted that at no stage was the Claimant put formally on notice that her continued employment was in jeopardy on that account. In that regard the procedures followed were deficient.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid compensation in the sum of €2,000 in full and final settlement of her claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th November, 2009______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.