HSE dispute with Áras Attracta care centre nurses may be resolved

A dispute between the HSE and five psychiatric nurses at the Áras Attracta care facility in Mayo, over the conduct of internal investigations into complaints against them, may be resolved, the High Court has heard.

Talks have been under way between the sides since Ms Justice Deirdre Murphy ruled earlier this month that the five were entitled to injunctions restraining the HSE from continuing with investigations unless they comply with the HSE’s trust in care and disciplinary procedures. The decision affects 12 other Áras Attracta staff subject to the same investigations.

The five — Lyndsey Conway, Carmel Doherty, Mary Prendergast, Vidhya Maverly, and Marie Kilcoyne — are being investigated arising from complaints following undercover filming by a reporter with RTÉ Prime Time Investigates in 2014, of events at the facility, which caters for adults with intellectual disabilities.

All five remain suspended on full pay and none are subject to any criminal proceedings.

The judge granted the injunctions on February 5 after finding they had a strong case that the HSE acted in breach of its own procedures governing such investigations. She criticised the HSE for its “reprehensible” attitude to efforts of the nurses’ trade union, the Psychiatric Nurses Association, to resolve internally “serious issues” over conduct of the investigations. There was no response for three months to inquiries put by the PNA to senior HSE personnel, she said.

The injunctions were to apply pending a full hearing of the action, but Peter Ward, for the HSE, yesterday told the judge it was hoped there will be no need for that full hearing. The HSE, which previously asked the judge to defer formal publication of her ruling, was not seeking any further deferral, he said.

Mr Ward said the five and the PNA have accepted assurances from the HSE that it, and especially its director general, does not generally allow industrial relations correspondence go unanswered.

The judge asked counsel was he saying there was an error of fact in her judgment on that issue and, if so, to point that out.

Mr Ward said if there was a full hearing, there would be additional evidence that some correspondence from the PNA was not received by those in the HSE to whom it was addressed. Disputed matters of fact may be left unresolved at injunctions stage and addressed at a full trial but the sides were trying to achieve “an overall resolution”.

Marguerite Bolger, for the five, said her side accepted, “in the normal course of events”, the correspondence does not go unanswered. The context was an effort to resolve the matter relating to the investigation.

Ms Justice Murphy said the talks between the sides may obviate the need for the court to make formal orders.

She directed her judgment should be formally published now and adjourned making final orders to March 23.