Nurse awarded €1,740 after dismissal for falling asleep while caring for child

WRC adjudication officer Úna Glazier-Farmer said the healthcare provider was entitled to investigate the incident, but the decision to dismiss the worker had been disproportionate. File picture

A nurse who was dismissed after falling asleep on duty while holding a vulnerable child has been awarded €1,740 in compensation.

Her employer told an adjudication hearing of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that the nurse had been found asleep while holding a child who required constant supervision and continuous observation.

The nurse denied that she had to be actively woken and claimed she had only dozed off momentarily, attributing the lapse to fatigue resulting from a transition away from a long period of night shifts.

The employer, a healthcare provider, cited additional concerns regarding the nurse’s alleged failure to comply with care protocols, including monitoring vital signs, checking equipment and following instructions in a care plan.

It also considered it problematic that the nurse had declined certain requests from the child’s parent and had not escalated concerns or reported the incident properly.

An investigation process was commenced and two meetings took place, followed by a disciplinary hearing. The nurse was informed of the allegations and given an opportunity to respond.

In light of the findings of the investigation and the nurse’s probationary status, the employer determined that she was unsuitable for continued employment and terminated her employment, citing sleeping on duty and failure to follow procedures.

The WRC heard that the nurse had a previously unblemished record and had consistently delivered high-quality care.

She accepted that she had dozed momentarily but argued that the sanction of dismissal was unfair, alleging unfair dismissal.

In her decision, WRC adjudication officer Úna Glazier-Farmer said the healthcare provider was entitled to investigate the incident, but the decision to dismiss the worker had been disproportionate and marred by procedural shortcomings.

She cited significant concerns regarding the adequacy and transparency of the procedures followed by the healthcare provider, highlighting the absence of clear documentary evidence regarding the applicable disciplinary procedure.

Ms Glazier-Farmer said there were also inconsistencies in the grounds for dismissal and questions over whether the nurse had been given a full and fair opportunity to respond.

She ruled that dismissing the worker for a first incident, in the absence of prior warnings and where mitigating factors such as the shift transition had been advanced, appeared disproportionate.

She found the dispute to be well founded and recommended that the employer pay the nurse two weeks’ wages in compensation, amounting to €1,740, as well as providing a statement of employment reflecting the procedural shortcomings.