ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013032
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | An Administrator/ Receptionist | A Doctor on Call service. |
Representatives | Bernadette Thornton SIPTU | Operations Manager |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00017150-001 | 30/01/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/04/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The dispute concerns a Written Warning issued to the Complainant by the Respondent Employer. It concerns incidents that took place in the workplace, a medical clinic, on the evening of the 10th December 2017 |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Written Warning issued by the Respondent was completely inappropriate and should never have been issued. The Complainant did not seek to overrule or alter a clinical decision of the Clinicians on duty but rather provided the patient in question via his mother with a piece of factual information that was commonly available. The behaviour of the Nurse in question was loud and hectoring of the Complainant and was carried out in a public area which added to the embarrassment of the Complainant. The issue could easily have been resolve by some local Mediation with the Nurse in question rather than allow it to escalate to this level. The Warning was excessively punitive as no policy exists in the Organisation regarding what information can or cannot be shared with Patients. The requirement, as part of the formal disciplinary decision, that a formal apology be given by the Complainant to the Nurse in question is not found in any part of the Disciplinary processes of the Respondent. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The main facts of the case were not disputed. On the evening of the 10th September a patient had attended with a finger injury and the Clinicians on Duty had referred the patient to Tallaght Hospital for follow up. The Complainant had in a conversation with the Patient mother advised the age limits and opening hours of the Naas Hospital facility – the clear implication being that he patient had also the option of going to Naas A&E if Tallaght was unsuitable. The Nurse on Duty raised a formal complaint against the Complainant regarding the passing on of this information. The Respondent carried out a full investigation, witnesses were interviewed, Prestation was afforded to the Complainant from SIPTU and all information shared. A Disciplinary meeting followed at which the Written Warning was imposed. This was Appealed to the CEO of the Organisation who, with a few modifications, upheld the Disciplinary finding. In a Medical organisation such as the Respondent Clinic it is of the utmost importance that all advice to Patients come from qualified Medical Personnel. The motivation of the Complainant was bona fide but fundamentally overstepped her non-clinician role. The issue is of such importance that a Written warning was the only reasonable course of action. The CEO had considered the matter carefully and his Appeal decision was a considered and reasonable outcome. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
Having hear the oral evidence and studied the written materials I came to the following conclusions. In the nature of the business Medical and Clinic responsibility is paramount. Any suggestion of Patient advice being given by unqualified non-medical staff could have very serious consequences. The Complainant was of long service and motivated only by a desire to offer assistance to the Patient whose mother was well known to her. Technically the information given was in relation to opening hours in Naas as opposed to Tallaght Hospitals was non-medical but I felt had to be seen in the context of the Medical environment. The treating Doctor and Nurse had referred the Patient to Tallaght Hospital and any possible suggestions or inferences, however well intentioned, made directly to the patient’s mother by the Complainant that Naas Hospital was a possibly suitable alternative were medically fraught and could in extremis have inadvertently exposed the Clinic to liability. However, on balance and in view of the bona fides of all concerned and the long service of the Complainant I recommend that the Warning stand but be reduced to a Verbal Warning of six month’s duration from the date of the incident. I also recommend, in the interests of good future working relationships, that the Complainant and the Nurse involved (who made the formal complaint) agree to meet jointly with the CEO to “shake hands” and agree that the matter, while of considerable clinic importance, is now closed. In addition, future discussions between staff on matters on this nature should take place privately and well off the main concourse floor
|
4: Recommendation
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend as follows
- In view of the Clinical importance of the issue the Warning stands but is reduced to a Verbal Warning of six months duration.
- The principal parties involved, the Complainant and the Nurse on the Night of the Incident agree to meet jointly with the CEO to “shake hands” and the matter is then regarded as formally closed.
Dated: 29th June, 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:Michael McEntee
Key Words: