| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 128/07 |
| Hearing date | 14 Nov 2006 |
| Determination date | 27 April 2007 |
| Member | R Arthur |
| Representation | B Corkill ; M Beech & K Jones |
| Location | Tauranga |
| Parties | Dr Y v Bay of Plenty District Health Board |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE - Applicant treated patient (“A”) at respondent – After A declared feelings for applicant, A discharged to GP’s care – Respondent investigated applicant’s management of A’s care after she committed suicide - Claimed disadvantaged by investigation and placement on garden leave - Whether full and fair investigation – By considering disciplinary action solely on circumstances of A’s case, and not other patients, respondent did not fail to fully investigate – Applicant not told of recommendation he be dismissed for serious misconduct – Potential procedural error remedied by agreement serious misconduct conclusion was in relation to clinical issues, not employment – Review conducted properly and not, as applicant claimed, as part of campaign to undermine him – Applicant agreed to garden leave - Unjustified suspension claim failed – Force in argument matter took too long to resolve, but delay not solely respondent’s responsibility – No unjustified disadvantage - UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – Whether investigation disclosed conduct capable of being serious misconduct – Investigation found applicant failed to recognise A’s emotional attachment and develop risk management plan - Concluded applicant’s practice seriously threatened A’s wellbeing - Provision of regular professional supervision relevant to whether actions serious misconduct in circumstances – Evidence supported view applicant resisted supervision - Despite knowledge of A’s situation, applicant arranged for news of clinician change to be made by GP – Risk not adequately managed by applicant - A’s medical file lacked proper diagnosis and documentation – Sufficient to raise significant concerns – Oram (cited below) standard applied – Respondent could reasonably conclude inadequacies in management of A’s care amounted to misconduct of sufficient gravity to deeply impair basic trust and confidence - Entitled to dismiss for serious misconduct – Outcome may have been different under s103A Employment Relations Act 2000 test – Dismissal justified - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Applicant’s details (apart from gender and occupation) subject to non-publication order – A's and other patients’ details also subject to order - Application for non-publication of respondent's name declined in public interest - Length of service 11 years - Psychiatrist |
| Result | Application dismissed (Unjustified disadvantage, unjustified dismissal) ; Application granted (Non-publication order) ; Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Personal Grievance |
| Statutes | ERA s103A;ERA Schedule 2 cl10 |
| Cases Cited | BP Oil Ltd v Northern Distribution Union [1992] 3 ERNZ 483;GWD Russells (Gore) Ltd v Muir [1993] 2 ERNZ 332;PBO Ltd v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808;Rankin v Attorney General in respect of the State Services Commissioner [2001] ERNZ 476;W & H Newspapers v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448;X v Auckland District Health Board [2007] ERNZ 66;Y v Bay of Plenty District Health Board unreported, R Arthur, 20 April 2006, AA 132/06 |
| Number of Pages | 16 |
| PDF File Link: | aa 128_07.pdf [pdf 94 KB] |