The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in 2007 as a nurse. From June 2016 she mainly worked in a specialist, long term unit. The Complainant’s employment was terminated as a result of an incident involving a patient.

In May 2017, the Complainant was one of four staff on duty and among the residents in their care was an elderly man with serious health problems. In the course of the night the resident became very difficult and in response the staff arranged for him to spend the night sitting in a day room; a room not intended to be a sleeping area and not in his own bed. He was not supervised for most of the night and he was also placed in an unsuitable chair. The incident was fully investigated by an experienced independent team to a high standard of fairness and in compliance with the Respondent’s procedures. The report of the investigation team was sent to the Complainant which concluded that the Complainant’s actions constituted ‘neglect’ and that she had restrained the resident. A disciplinary hearing took place subject to all requirements of fair procedure and the Complainant was dismissed for serious misconduct. She appealed the decision unsuccessfully.

The Complainant maintained that she made a professional decision on the basis of the resident’s best interests. A carer was asked to stay with the resident and to do checks every thirty minutes. The Complainant objected to the preliminary screening process and claims that she was denied all fair procedures at that stage. She was not given the allegations against her, or advised of her rights to representation, nor was she given any record of the meeting. There was also no evidence that any consideration was given to a lesser sanction.

In considering the evidence, the Adjudication Officer highlighted that the Complainant’s submissions regarding the lack of training, resources and governance deficits were not addressed by the Respondent. The Adjudication Officer also considered that the Complainant had a twenty-three year clean record and concluded that a sanction of termination did not fall within ‘the range of reasonable sanctions’ on the basis of the facts. Therefore, the Adjudication Officer found that the sanction of dismissal lay outside the range of reasonable responses as well as on the basis of the substantial procedural deficits. The Complainant was ordered to be re-instated to the position she held immediately before her dismissal on the terms and conditions on which she had been employed immediately before her dismissal.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/april/adj-00024009.html