FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OUR LADY'S HOSPICE & CARE SERVICES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No(S): ADJ-00034360 CA-00045374
Our Lady’s Hospice and Care Services has appealed that recommendation. The matter before the Court relates to the issuing of a disciplinary sanction to a worker for amending a patient’s diagnosis on an internal administrative system. In March 2020, the worker changed a patient’s diagnosis on the system after the patient’s mother emailed a query about why her daughter’s diagnosis had been changed. Having reviewed the patient’s medical file, the worker concluded that an error had occurred, and she advised the patient’s mother that she would follow up to remedy the matter. The worker subsequently amended the diagnosis on the system to reflect the patient’s original diagnosis. Following an internal investigation that concluded in December 2020, and a disciplinary investigation that concluded February 2021, the worker was issued with a disciplinary sanction of a final written warning for a period of 12 months, together with the demotion to a grade 3 role, for a period of one year. That sanction was reduced on appeal in July 2021 to a written warning to remain on the worker’s file for a period of 9 months. SIPTU, on behalf of the worker, contends that the issuing of a disciplinary sanction in this case was unwarranted in all of the circumstances. It was clear to the worker that a letter generated by the system and sent to the patient referenced an inaccurate diagnosis. The worker believed an incorrect diagnosis was entered onto the system, and she remedied that matter. The worker disputes that her actions amounted to misconduct, as workers amend errors on the system all of the time. It is her position that at all times she acted in the best interests of her employer. Furthermore, no guidance or SOP was in place at the time to warrant disciplinary action. The Worker is appealing the disciplinary sanction of a written warning on the basis that the investigation procedures were unfair, and that her responses to the allegations set out were not given full consideration by the disciplinary panel. The investigation focused solely on her actions as opposed to a wider investigation into the overall workings of the Department. The investigative panel, the disciplinary panel, and the appeals panel, all failed to acknowledge that there was a lack of official procedures when issues such as this arose. Ibec, on behalf of the employer, submits that the discovery of the amended diagnosis and the circumstances surrounding that amendment carry with it very serious implications for the treatment of patients, with potential for mistreatment and an incorrect medication regime. It exposes the employer and the treating consultant to potentially serious legal claims and reputational damage. The employer strongly refutes those errors of this nature are rectified by workers, as such changes are only made by clinical leads. A full and thorough investigation was undertaken into the matter. The work was afforded the right to representation throughout investigation, disciplinary and appeal stages, and was provided with all relevant documentation. A fair and reasonable process was followed at all times and the sanction applied at disciplinary stage was more than fair, notwithstanding the subsequent reduction of the disciplinary sanction at appeal stage. While the worker could have been dismissed for serious misconduct, the employer chose a lesser sanction, which was further reduced on appeal. The Adjudication Officer in his decision noted that he could find no undue delay in undertaking either the investigation of the disciplinary process and found no flaws in the disciplinary process itself. The Court has given careful consideration to the extensive submissions made by both parties in relation to the incident that gave rise to the worker changing a patient’s medical diagnosis on the internal administration system, and the subsequent investigation, disciplinary, and appeal stages of the process. The matter before the Court relates to the issuing of a disciplinary sanction to a worker. It is not the role of the Labour Court to reopen and conduct internal investigations. The worker in this case admitted to changing a medical diagnosis without authorisation on the internal administration system. She believed she was correcting an error and did not believe that she needed authorisation to do so. The Court accepts that the worker acted at all times in the interests of the patient. However, amending patient records without authorisation is a serious matter that has potentially serious consequences. The employer treated this matter as serious misconduct. It says that it took account of mitigating factors when it reduced the sanction awarded on appeal. In this regard it accepted that the worker had not intended to gain or benefit from her actions, that questions remained unanswered about who inputted the error, and that no documentation existed setting out a standard approach in these matters. At the hearing, the employer told the Court that has reviewed its procedures to ensure that a similar incident does not occur. Having regard to all the circumstances the Court recommends that the warning is expunged from the worker’s file. The Court is of the view that no award of compensation is warranted in this case. The recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly. The Court so decides.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary. |
