Compensation of £57,000 for sacked doctor
Chris Donegan • Published 12 Jan 2012 13:00
A doctor who was sacked from her job at the Erne Hospital has been awarded more than £70,000 compensation by an Industrial Tribunal.
It ruled that Dr. Adriel Stewart was unfairly dismissed but reduced her compensation to £57,000 because of her "rude and dismissive" behaviour towards junior doctors and nurses.
The Tribunal was also damning in its criticism of hospital management at the Western Health and Social Care Trust over its handling of the case.
Dr. Stewart worked in the Erne's Accident and Emergency Department from February 2007 until she was suspended in July 2009. She was formally dismissed in July 2010.
She claimed unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.
Her employer, the Western Trust, accepted throughout that she was an excellent doctor and there was no criticism of her medical skills.
The Tribunal found that the process that led to Dr. Stewart's dismissal began in May 2009, when the Trust's newly appointed Assistant Director of Emergency Care and Medicine, Mrs. Geraldine Hillick, arrived at the Erne Hospital on a familiarisation tour. She had a 20 minute conversation with Sister Diane McCaffrey during which Sister McCaffrey expressed concerns about staff morale in the Accident and Emergency Department and about Dr. Stewart. Mrs. Hillick decided to commission Dr. Stephen Gibson, a clinical psychologist with whom she had previously worked, to review the workings of the Department. Following publication of his report, Dr. Stewart was suspended, and Mr. Geoff Nesbitt, a consultant anaesthetist based at Altnagelvin Hospital, commissioned to prepare a second report. It was followed by disciplinary proceedings leading to the dismissal of Dr. Stewart on July 16, 2010, for alleged "gross misconduct".
The Tribunal found that the Gibson Report was conducted in a way which, viewed against the objective standard of a "reasonable employer", was "unusual".
It also found that Dr. Nesbitt relied on Dr. Stewart's previous dismissal from the Causeway Hospital to conclude that there was a strong possibility of the recurrence of inappropriate behaviour.
Neither Dr. Nesbitt nor Mr. Gibson investigated a possible link between the deterioration in Dr. Stewart's behaviour and the six months she spent in war-torn Afghanistan in 2008 as a surgeon with the Territorial Army.
The Tribunal also found that the Trust did not properly investigate allegations that several doctors had left the Erne because of Dr. Stewart.
"A reasonable employer conducting a reasonable investigation into a serious allegation, with a potentially significant impact on an employee's career, would have made such enquiries and would have been in a position to demonstrate to the Tribunal that it had done so," it stated.
It also referred to incidents, such as one when Dr. Stewart "gave off" to a Nursing Sister who had wrongly given the keys to the drugs cabinet to an unauthorised person, which were apparently regarded by the Trust as misconduct or inappropriate behaviour.
"Judged against the objective standard of a reasonable employer, it is difficult to see how this was a reasonable approach," the Tribunal found.
If found that apart from a small number of specific incidents, there was a lack of detail about alleged inappropriate behaviour by Dr. Stewart and a lack of complaints at the time.
It said it was "remarkable", in the circumstances, that no formal complaints emerged until they were generated by the Gibson and Nesbitt Reports.
"The disciplinary process also fell short of the standard expected of a reasonable employer. While employers cannot be required to run their disciplinary hearings like a criminal trial, a reasonable employer would have conducted these hearings fairly and the Tribunal has concluded that the disciplinary process was not fair when judged against that objective standard," the Tribunal stated.
The Tribunal heard that Dr. Stewart had appealed her dismissal. The appeal was heard by the Trust's Chief Executive, Mrs. Elaine Way, and its Director of Women and Children's Services, Mr. John Doherty.
Mrs. Way said she relied on the evidence of the witnesses but also admitted relying on the Gibson Report, which relied on evidence and "anecdotes" given in confidence, which could not be adequately challenged by Dr. Stewart.
The Tribunal ruled: "The appeal process was also therefore unfair. Anyone facing a charge which could not just cost her job, but could have serious and long-term effects on a professional career, should be allowed a full chance to challenge the evidence on which that charge may be upheld. Mrs. Way's clear evidence was that the Gibson Report formed a significant part of the Trust's decision at the appeal stage to uphold the decision to dismiss. Her statement to the Tribunal that she relied only on the evidence of the four witnesses who were made available for cross-examination by the claimant, made no sense when she almost immediately confirmed that she had also relied on the Gibson Report."
It concluded: "For the reasons outlined above the dismissal was unfair."
However, the Tribunal found that Dr. Stewart's behaviour contributed to her own downfall.
The Trust had argued that if the Tribunal ruled against it and concluded that Dr. Stewart was unfairly dismissed, it should reduce the compensation award to nothing on the basis of Dr. Stewart's contributory conduct.
"The Tribunal concludes that the claimant had difficulties with interpersonal relationships in the work place. She expected high standards and was not tolerant of any failure to meet those standards. However, the way in which, on occasions but not always, she dealt with junior medical staff and nurses was wrong and amounted to culpable behaviour. She was excessively authoritarian in a way that was, and was perceived to be, rude and dismissive. This conduct has, however, to be judged in the context in which it occurred, ie. on a busy and pressurised Accident and Emergency Department which relied heavily on locums," it added.
The Tribunal concluded that 30 per cent was "the appropriate deduction" in the compensation award.
It also concluded there was a "possibility" that Dr. Stewart's treatment contained an element of sex discrimination but insufficient evidence to prove it and therefore dismissed that aspect of her claim.
This article appeared in Impartial Reporter 12 Jan 12
Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our News archives.
