The claimant was employed as an advanced paramedic in the National Ambulance Service in 2013. Following two incidents which occurred in July 2013 and August 2013 a disciplinary process was undertaken which resulted in the claimant being advised of his dismissal from employment. He exercised his right of appeal in accordance with HSE procedures. The Dismissals Appeal Committee concluded that he was to be subjected to three months’ unpaid suspension, re-engagement in the basic paramedic grade, a final written warning, (said to remain on his file for the duration of his career), his workplace to be determined by his employer, the necessity to undertake training as required and a requirement to co-operate with medical supervision. 

The claimant challenged this decision. However, he did not attend the second scheduled day of hearing before the WRC due to a ‘fitness to practice’ process that he had to attend by the relevant professional body, the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council, (PHECC). Subsequently, the  Adjudication Officer found that the case had fallen for want of prosecution.

The Labour Court had deferred dealing with the appeal in 2016 until the PHECC process was completed. It was accepted by both parties that there was now no outstanding aspect to that process, that the claimant had been ‘censured’ for his behaviour and remain registered to practice as an advanced paramedic. The employer confirmed that, in accordance with the HSE disciplinary process, the final written warning imposed by the Dismissals Appeal Committee had lapsed after 12 months.

The Union sought, on the claimant’s behalf, the two penalties, the reduction in grade and the location transfer, be rescinded. The employer opposed this submission. The Union argued that the HSE's demotion decision was purely punitive and, therefore, inappropriate and, as a result, it amounted to a breach of the procedures. The Union also argued the claimant had accepted responsibility for his actions but the penalties were disproportionate and that no objective basis existed for the claimant's re-location or continued exclusion from supervisory roles for an indeterminate period.

For the other side, the employer argued that the outcome of the PHECC proceedings showed wrongdoing and added confirmation to the sanction imposed by the employer. There are three requirements to operate as an advanced paramedic, namely training; registration; and authorisation by the employer. The employer also maintained that the claimant had exhausted the agreed appeals process.

The Court was satisfied that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Court was also satisfied that the HSE procedures (although imperfect in terms of length of time) used were fair and thorough and, moreover, that, once commenced, were used in a fair and balanced fashion by the employer. The Court opined that it was essential that a transparent and fair process should be in place, within which there should be clear criteria against which the claimant’s clinical competence can be assessed to determine his suitability for authorisation to return to the role of advanced paramedic and, if applicable, that any perceived deficiencies are identified so that they might be addressed.

The Court also recommended that discussion should take place between the claimant’s Union and the employer with a view to agreeing a review process and criteria and that the parties should aim to complete these discussions within six months of the date of the Court’s recommendation. On the question of location, the Court held that there is a third party whose situation could be impacted upon by any recommendation of the Court. The Court therefore suggested that the Union and employer engage on this matter to determine if an outcome can be achieved that is satisfactory to all parties.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2018/December/LCR21842.html