FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PEAMOUNT HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-076745-ir-09/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that the Hospital, having failed to investigate complaints made against her in a fair manner, imposed an unjust and disproportionate sanction against her. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 4th January, 2010 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “I have considered the submissions and arguments put forward by the parties. I have considered the point raised on behalf of the claimant with regard to the fact that the respondent’s HR Manager signed the letter inviting the claimant to a disciplinary meeting, he had delegated the investigation to a colleague. The HR Manager subsequently sat on the appeals board of the claimants appeal, I have noted that the HR Manager denied any knowledge of the case prior to the appeal. I consider this to be merely a technical breach of procedures and accept the bona fides of the HR Manager in regard to his lack of knowledge of the details of the complaint. I have reviewed the rest of the evidence and I do not find the case well founded and therefore it falls.”.
- “I have considered the submissions and arguments put forward by the parties. I have considered the point raised on behalf of the claimant with regard to the fact that the respondent’s HR Manager signed the letter inviting the claimant to a disciplinary meeting, he had delegated the investigation to a colleague. The HR Manager subsequently sat on the appeals board of the claimants appeal, I have noted that the HR Manager denied any knowledge of the case prior to the appeal. I consider this to be merely a technical breach of procedures and accept the bona fides of the HR Manager in regard to his lack of knowledge of the details of the complaint. I have reviewed the rest of the evidence and I do not find the case well founded and therefore it falls.”.
3. 1.The Hospital's decision to impose a sanction was unwarranted and disproportionate.
2. There was no corroborative evidence to support the allegations made against the Worker.
3.The Worker had an excellent work record both prior to and after this alleged incident.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Hospital has a duty of care to provide the highest standards of care in a dignified manner to its patients.
2.Once it was made awareof the complaint against the Worker the Hospital carried out a full and fair investigation.
3.Having considered all the evidence, including the Worker's own admission that she had raised her voice when dealing with an elderly patient, the sanction imposed on the Worker was reasonable and proportionate.
DECISION:
The Court finds that the processing of this case through the Hospital’s Disciplinary Procedure was less than satisfactory in a number of respects to the extent that there may be an element of doubt regarding the outcome.
The Court notes that the incident, that was the subject of the investigation, took place some considerable time ago and that if, following fresh consideration of the matter, the original decisions was to stand, the written warning issued would now be exhausted and the matter no longer on the worker's personnel or disciplinary record. In effect, another investigation would be nugatory and serve no useful purpose.
On this basis the Court recommends that the matter be closed and that the personnel and disciplinary records be cleaned of any reference to this matter.
In addition, it became clear in the process of the Court’s consideration of this case that the Hospital’s Disciplinary Procedure would benefit from a review in the light of the issues that arose in the course of the hearing.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
16th September, 2010______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.