| Restrictions | Includes non-publication order |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | [2013] NZERA Wellington 140 |
| Hearing date | 10 Sep 2013 |
| Determination date | 07 November 2013 |
| Member | P R Stapp |
| Representation | G Bennet ; H Kynaston, N Ridder |
| Location | Palmerston North |
| Parties | Geevarghese v Mid Central District Health Board |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Serious Misconduct - Dismissal justified |
| Abstract | Applicant (Ms Geevarghese) employed by respondent (Mid Central District Health Board) as nurse (Health Care and Social Assistance Sector). Applicant claimed unjustifiably dismissed by respondent. Applicant worked in ward providing care for older patients, including patients with mental health issues. Respondent received three complaints about applicant’s behaviour on ward. Allegations applicant inappropriate towards patient by slapping, punching and yelling at patient and pulling patient’s ears. Applicant’s supervisor raised matter verbally and invited applicant to meeting regarding complaints. Respondent investigated allegations and interviewed complainants. Applicant claimed allegations motivated by “racism and bullying” but respondent found no basis for claims during investigation. Report following investigation concluded applicant delivered inappropriate care to patient and slapped patient but applicant denied conduct. Report stated applicant’s behaviour raised serious issues of trust and confidence for respondent. On basis of report respondent invoked disciplinary procedure. Case of complainant’s word against applicant’s word. Applicant provided with summary of investigation interviews. Dismissal recommended and passed on to operations manager to decide outcome. Respondent found complainants genuine and credible. Applicant provided with opportunity to respond. Applicant dismissed for serious misconduct.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL: Authority ordered non-publication of patient's name and patient's family. Nothing to support applicant’s claim allegations motivated by “racism and bullying”. Process not predetermined or biased towards applicant. Investigation independent of people involved. Investigation considered witness statements and applicant’s explanations. Applicant did not have witnesses to support claims. Respondent reached honestly held opinion applicant more likely than not did slap patient and applicant’s denial not honest about actions. Dismissal in range of options for offence. Authority satisfied respondent met requirements under s103A(3) Employment Relations Act 2000. Respondent put all concerns to applicant about allegations, findings and recommended outcome. Respondent had regard to standard of care required by role. Summary of witness statements provided not actual statements but no material difference in content. Applicant had opportunity to respond and respondent genuinely considered response and available options. Applicant genuinely believed no inappropriate conduct and consistently denied allegations. Authority noted applicant could be correct but respondent arrived at honestly held belief based on available evidence. Evidence met standard for such allegations. Dismissal justified. |
| Result | Application dismissed; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A(3)(a) - ERA s103A(3)(b) - ERA s103A(3)(c) - ERA s103A(3)(d) |
| Number of Pages | 10 |
| PDF File Link: | 2013_NZERA_Wellington_140.pdf [pdf 178 KB] |