Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Health Service Provider

Representatives

Represented by the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00040805-001

03/11/2020

The within claim relates to an allegation of unfair treatment by the respondent in respect of its decision to terminate the worker’s sponsorship under the Public Health Nurse Sponsorship Scheme. While initially the worker sought to have her sponsorship reinstated by the respondent, given the lapse in time, the complainant has requested an apology and financial compensation as redress.  

The worker is employed by the respondent as a Community Registered Nurse in Community Healthcare.  The worker first qualified as a staff nurse in 1990 and has worked in a number of positions in the Irish Healthcare system and also in the UK. In 2017, the worker applied for the Student Public Health Nursing programme and started on the scheme from 1 April 2017 for the academic year 2017/2018.

The INMO state that during this time, the worker suffered the bereavement of both of her parents and she was unwell during the course. It was stated that difficulties arose in relation to the clinical placements due to interpersonal difficulties with two preceptors (nurses) which caused the worker work-related stress. The worker was also in the position that she was studying in UCC and her placements were in Dublin North and Dublin North West.

It also emerged that there was a difficulty with the employer in supplying the worker with a Preceptor, in order to allow her to complete the clinical placements. A redacted extract of an Occupational Health report was submitted. It was carried out on 19 February 2018 and shows that the worker suffered from an acute stress reaction and she reported that she had been experiencing symptoms in relation to stress and she believed that her symptoms were related to her placement in Balbriggan from January 2018.

The worker also attended a Consultant Psychiatrist who confirmed that at the time she was suffering from a severe depressive illness and was not capable of attending her academic studies or attending her exams in UCC. The Consultant Psychiatrist was of the view that she was not able to attend UCC due to illness. Subsequently, in October 2019, the worker appealed to UCC seeking an extension of time for the academic component of the course. It was stated that the request for an extension of the academic pathway was subsequently approved by UCC and was confirmed by way of letter on 2 November 2019 granting this request.

The worker then applied to the employer for an extension of the sponsorship arrangement through the Director of Public Health Nursing. This request was not approved by the Director of Public Health Nursing and subsequently, the worker appealed to the General Manager. This request similarly was not approved and the employer’s decision to terminate the sponsorship agreement was upheld. The INMO made representations on behalf of the worker but the employer did not revise its position.

Union Arguments

The worker is a registered qualified nurse and has considerable experience across many nursing settings with over 30 years’ experience. As stated above, during the academic course of 2017/2018, the worker was unwell and was being treated in respect of this illness. This arose in the course of the clinical placements. It is the position of the INMO that the employer was unfair in terminating  the sponsorship arrangement given that its member was ill during the sponsorship programme.

The worker successfully applied for an extension from UCC to fulfil the academic part of the course. As this is a blended course, it is required that she complete a number of Clinical Placements. The worker’s Consultant Psychiatrist believes that she is fit and should be in a position to complete the academic components of the course.

The worker is currently working as a Community Registered Nurse, delivering care to elder patients. The INMO highlights a letter from the worker’s manager confirming that she is performing her duties in a satisfactory way for patients. It is further stated that the worker was promoted to the Senior Nurse Enhanced Practice Scale and in order to obtain this position, an employee must be signed off as part of the verification process in order to be approved.

The INMO requests that the WRC takes into account that the worker was unwell during the original Clinical Placements and there were extenuating circumstances in relation to her inability to attend placements during the original part of this course.          

The INMO is seeking a recommendation that the employer apologises to the worker in relation to the manner in which she was treated. The Union expressed the view that there was not sufficient reasonable accommodation given to the worker and it also expressed concerns in relation to a breach of the worker’s confidential data.

The INMO is seeking a recommendation that the within complaint is well-founded and that due to the passage of time, the worker is no longer seeking to continue to complete the Public Health Nurse Sponsorship Programme and that in recognition for the serious mishandling of the issue by the employer that an apology is issued and that appropriate compensation is awarded.   

The worker is employed as a Community Registered Nurse in Community Healthcare Organisation. In 2017, the worker accepted a sponsorship placement on the student Public Health Nursing programme in Dublin North City and County on the third round offers. Sponsorship is available for nurses who want to qualify as public health nurses (PHNs). The programme runs for 1 academic year starting in September each year. This programme involves a national joint application process between the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and the employer.

The worker attended UCC for the academic component of the programme. The programme in UCC is delivered over 8 academic modules and 4 clinical placements in blocks of 3,4,4,6 weeks. The worker was assigned to Dublin North for all her clinical placements. The worker did not complete the clinical placement requirements of the programme as set out by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland due to periods of sick leave. She also failed to complete the academic component of the programme.

The worker was supported by the employer in recommencing the programme in 2018 with a new cohort of students. Regrettably, she was unsuccessful in completing either the academic or clinical placement component of the programme. Late in 2018, following negotiations between the worker and her Director of Public Health Nursing, Occupational Health and HR, a decision was taken to allow the worker continue her placement in Dublin North West to reduce her travel time and help alleviate her pressure. This was facilitated in an attempt to assist the worker complete her course. It was agreed to introduce this after the worker had repeated the modules and exams she had been unsuccessful in as part of her academic process in UCC.

In June 2019, the Community Healthcare Organisation received notification that the worker had still not successfully completed the academic component of the programme and was due to re-take the Infant Mental Health module at the 4th attempt in July 2019. Again the Organisation agreed to facilitate a placement if the worker was successful in her resit of the academic modules. Management are of the understanding that she was not successful at her fourth sitting of these modules.

The worker contacted the Community Health Organisation requesting an extension to the two year rule for completion of the programme and requested the Organisation make an extension to the agreement she had signed on commencement of the course. The request was reviewed but was declined owing to the lack of progress made and the numerous facilitations made to the worker to assist her with the programme. The decision was then taken not to extend the arrangement and to terminate her sponsorship.

The INMO wrote to the Chief Officer in October 2020 stating that they were of the view that the worker had been unfairly treated and advised that they were referring the matter to the WRC. The Head of HR responded to the INMO outlining all the accommodations that had been made in supporting the complainant during the course of her placement and the rationale behind the decision taken to cease her sponsorship.

The employer states that the claim is that the complainant is dissatisfied with the decision taken not to grant an extension to the timeframe allocated and is disappointed to learn at the commencement of the hearing that while earlier in the INMO submissions the redress sought was the reinstatement of her funding to complete the programme but that now has changed to compensation.

The employer states that the complainant was well aware and signed up to the terms of the sponsorship agreement. It states that Section 4 (b) relates to sick leave entitlement. It states that “any clinical placement or academic time to be made up resulting from sick leave or any certified / approved absence will be a matter for decision by the College and the employer {my emphasis}.” The agreement further stipulates at Section 2(d) that “A student failing to obtain the PHN qualification on the completion of the course will, at the discretion of the employer be retained on probation to afford him/her one further opportunity of securing the qualification at repeat examination but in any event no later than the end of the following academic year”. While the worker had passed four modules at repeat attempts, there remained four modules that she had to pass to complete the programme. The worker had failed one module on two occasions, another on three occasions and a third on four occasions. The employer states that as the sponsorship only allows for one further opportunity, it has more than fulfilled its obligation to the complainant under the scheme.

In conclusion, the employer states that while the complainant was unwell during the course of the sponsorship programme, she was assessed by Occupational Health in February 2018 and deemed fit to continue with her placement. It states that management supported her and accommodated her by allowing her recommence the programme in 2018 with a new cohort of students. The employer states that it was also willing to accommodate her with a transfer to Dublin North West if she was successful in the academic component of her course. However, it states that despite the many accommodations made and supports given throughout the programme, the complainant was not successful in passing either the academic or placement components of the programme she commenced in September 2017.   

I have carefully considered all the information put forward by both sides in the within claim. I note that during the course, the worker suffered the bereavement of both her parents and was unwell. I note that issues arose in the context of the worker’s clinical placements due to interpersonal difficulties with two Preceptors and the worker alleges that this resulted in her suffering stress and anxiety.  The worker stated that the standard of Preceptors was appalling and the manner in which the documentation was completed was totally unacceptable.

I note that the primary role of a Preceptor is to facilitate learning by assisting the student to meet personal and course objectives. A Preceptor is an experienced practitioner who teaches and supervises and provides feedback to the student. In the within case, the Preceptor was required to assess the student, sign off that the student was meeting the standard or not based on their progression over the year and to state whether or not the person was competent to undertake the duties involved.

The worker stated that there were no records in place with regard to her second preceptor and she stated that she was not included in any of the discussions.

With regard to the issue of availability of Preceptors, the employer stated that they had a significant number of students in placements and all available preceptors were already being utilised. The employer submitted that it had difficulty retaining nurses and there were nurses out on maternity leave and sick leave so there was an issue with the availability of preceptors.

The worker stated that there were serious deficiencies and incompetence in respect of both preceptors; she states that documentation was not filled out properly and incorrect information was put on the forms. She states that her competencies were not done in a fair manner.

The employer made the point that the worker failed a number of the academic tests at UCC and that it is necessary to have the theory side before coming into the clinical placement.  The employer stated that the worker was referred to Occupational Health who had stated that she was fit to continue with the placements.  Although I note that this differs from a subsequent report from the workers own Consultant Psychiatrist. In this regard, the letter from the worker’s Consultant Psychiatrist dated 4 November 2019 stated that the worker was suffering from a severe depressive illness and was not capable of attending her academic studies or attending her exams in UCC. She applied for an extension and UCC subsequently approved an extension of the academic pathway. The worker also applied to the employer for an extension but this request was not approved and the decision to terminate the sponsorship agreement was upheld.

The employer states that the worker failed a number of the academic modules in UCC and this was also a factor in the decision to terminate her sponsorship agreement. However, the point was made that if the worker was not getting the appropriate assistance in terms of the availability of Preceptors and the manner in which the Preceptor role was being carried out; this could have an adverse effect in terms of her ability to pass the academic modules.   

The worker states that she has a data protection complaint lodged in a separate forum with regard to a breach of confidentiality by the respondent in respect of her confidential information. While I note this allegation, I am cognisant that the INMO official stated that this issue will be dealt with in a separate forum accordingly it is not for me to address this issue.

In considering the totality of the information provided in the within claim, it is clear that there were issues with the availability of Preceptors and the manner in which the role was carried out. At the hearing, the worker came across as a dedicated, diligent nurse with considerable experience across many nursing settings with over 30 years experience. During the course, the worker suffered the bereavement of her parents. Difficulties also arose in the clinical placement settings and there were interpersonal issues with the Preceptors which the worker states resulted in her suffering work related stress.

On careful examination of all the information, in my view, given the unique set of circumstances and challenges that the worker faced, the employer did not examine other options to assist the worker  as would be expected from a reasonable employer prior to taking the decision to terminate the worker’s sponsorship under the Scheme.  Accordingly, I find that the worker’s claim of unfair treatment is well-founded. I recommend that the employer

(i)                  provides an apology to the worker for the manner in which she was treated by the Preceptors during the course   

(ii)                reviews the Preceptor role to ensure it is in line with best practice

(iii)               pay the worker compensation of €2,750

I find that the worker’s claim is well-founded. I recommend that the employer

(i)                  provides an apology to the worker for the manner in which she was treated by the Preceptors during the course   

(ii)                reviews the Preceptor role to ensure it is in line with best practice

(iii)               pay the worker compensation of €2,750

Industrial Relations Acts