LCR22103

• “I find that it would be excessively restrictive to limit a Disciplinary Hearing panel to only one option, and that being the first or “next” stage in the disciplinary procedure. Every case is adjudged on its own merits and the full suite of options needs to be available, otherwise the disciplinary procedure would be drafted in a way that prevents the various Stages being opened to a disciplinary panel. The Employer said that the high level of errors was in itself beyond normal and I am satisfied that this case is of such a nature, and this allows the disciplinary panel to decide on a higher sanction than Verbal Warning - Stage 1 and up to, and including, gross misconduct taking all mitigation factors into play.
  
  I do not find the Worker’s claim that the Employer was unfair or unreasonable to be justified and accordingly, I am satisfied that the Worker’s case cannot succeed.”

This is an appeal by the Worker from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (ADJ-00015465, dated 9 January 2019) under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The Worker’s Notice of Appeal was received by the Court on 14 January 2019. The Court heard the appeal in Galway on 11 September 2019.

The Worker has been employed as a Care/Health Support Worker by Cheshire Ireland (‘the Company’) since 2012. A review of medication errors at one of the Company’s centres took place in June 2017. This review indicated that the Worker had had four medication errors over a period of five months. It was agreed that the Worker would be required to undergo medication retraining at the earliest opportunity but would be permitted to continue to administer medication in the meantime. Further errors occurred in August 2017 before this retraining could be arranged. Following a supervision meeting on 1 September 2017, the Worker was notified by letter dated 27 September that she would be suspended from medication administration duties with immediate effect until such time as she had completed full retraining. The Worker was also cautioned at this point that any further medication errors could give rise to disciplinary action. She was also invited to inform her employer immediately of anything she believed could be done to assist her in the future.

The Worker attended training on 5 and 6 October 2017 and again on 25 October 2017. However, four further medication errors were recorded against her in the period January to February 2018. The Worker was again removed from medication administration duties. She was invited to attend a disciplinary hearing by letter dated 9 March 2018. Following the disciplinary meeting, the Worker was issued with a Stage 2 Written Warning which was to remain on her personnel file until 4 January 2019. That decision was appealed by the Worker. An appeal hearing took place on 5 June 2018. The decision to apply the Stage 2 Written Warning was upheld. The Worker referred a dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 on 2 July 2018. Having investigated the dispute, the Adjudication Officer concluded that the Company had not been unfair or unreasonable in its dealings with the Worker.

Submissions

The Worker’s submission takes issue with two aspects of the Company’s application of its disciplinary procedures to her situation. Firstly, the Worker submits that the Company appears to have bypassed the initial counselling stage provided for in the disciplinary policy and moved, instead, straight to the disciplinary stage. Secondly, it is submitted that the Company – by applying a Stage 2 Written Warning – failed to apply the range of sanctions set out in its disciplinary procedures in a progressive manner.

The Company submits that it held supervision meetings with the Worker following every occurrence of a medication error by her and that she was offered support and retraining on each occasion. The decision to move to the disciplinary stage was taken only after careful consideration of the number of medication errors made by the Worker and the ongoing offers of support given to her. The Company also submits that a Stage 2 Written Warning was an appropriate sanction having regard to the number of medication errors made by the Worker and the fact that she did not appear to take the prior interventions by the Company seriously.

Decision

Having carefully considered the Parties’ written and verbal submissions, the Court finds no fault with the manner in which the Company dealt with the shortcomings in the Worker’s performance of her duties. No unfairness was visited on the Worker arising from the Company’s application of its disciplinary process in the circumstances.

The Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed.

The Court so decides.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
CR______________________
26 September, 2019Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.