€22k for care assistant who left man nude in nursing home
A senior staff nurse (SSN) told an employment appeals tribunal a similar incident had occurred a week earlier.
On May 6, 2014, the SSN saw an elderly man sitting on his bed, fully undressed. The curtain was not pulled and the door to the corridor was open.
When she questioned the claimant, health care assistant, Reda Kunceviciene, about the “neglect”, Ms Kunceviciene said she was taking the man for a shower and she had left the door open because she thought another HCA was following her.
On the same day, the SSN wrote a report on the incident and sent it, by email, to the company, Elder Homes (Charleville) Ltd.
In both reports, she referred to a similar incident on April 29, 2014, in which the claimant had left the door open while she was assisting another resident with personal care.
On that occasion, she reminded Ms Kunceviciene, who had been working for the company since 2007 and was a nurse in her home country, that the door should be closed and the curtain pulled around the bed.
The patient shared a double room with one other resident, and the SSN’s report said that the other person in the room was awake and watching.
The room was at the end of the corridor and the incident occurred shortly after 8am. The home has open visiting hours.
At an investigation meeting on June 12, 2014, the claimant admitted the infractions and told the investigation that she had made a mistake.
She said it had been early in the morning, that the room was at the end of the corridor, and that she thought another HCA was following her.
A disciplinary hearing was conducted by the director of the nursing home, and by the director of another home, on July 29, 2014.
There was a dispute as to whether a similar incident, which allegedly occurred on April 29, a week earlier, had been raised with the claimant at the investigation meeting.
The panel concluded that Ms Kunceviciene’s behaviour on May 6, 2014 constituted gross misconduct, warranting dismissal.
The director’s evidence to the tribunal was that neglect or omission, such as this, came within the definition of elder abuse and that this had been highlighted as such in the elder-abuse training programme.
It was not necessary for a resident to be aware, embarrassed, distressed, or observed by a third party, as the violation of the person’s dignity and privacy was sufficient to constitute abuse.
She said it violates an elder person’s civil and human rights, and that if she did not report the incident to Hiqa, she would be in breach of the elder policy.
The claimant appealed the severity of the sanction in September, 2014, but the dismissal was upheld.
The tribunal found the fact the company allowed Ms Kunceviciene to continue to work without any sanction or restrictions, for almost three months following the incident, was inconsistent with its position that the breach was of such nature as to constitute gross misconduct and justify dismissal.
It said a zero-tolerance policy does not mean that the most serious sanction is, or must be, imposed for all breaches, irrespective of the seriousness of the breach: “Having considered the nature of the breach in this case, the tribunal unanimously finds that the sanction of dismissal was disproportionate.”
