Cork hospital ordered to pay €5k for firing medical secretary who failed to disclose medical condition

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that the South Infirmary – Victoria University Hospital in Cork has unfairly dismissed Helena O’Neill because of the disproportionate nature of the sanction imposed after finding her guilty of gross misconduct. File picture: Dan Linehan

A medical secretary at a Cork hospital who was fired for failing to tell her employer that she had a medical condition which might affect her ability to work has been awarded compensation of over €5,000.

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that the South Infirmary – Victoria University Hospital in Cork has unfairly dismissed Helena O’Neill because of the disproportionate nature of the sanction imposed after finding her guilty of gross misconduct.

Ms O’Neill, who was represented by SIPTU trade union, complained that she had been fired in breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 as a result of a flawed process.

She also claimed the penalty of dismissal was “disproportionate in the extreme”. The WRC heard that the hospital had carried out an investigation and disciplinary process which found that Ms O’Neill had withheld information in answers on a Pre-Placement Health Assessment form.

Ms O’Neill had ticked a box on the medical questionnaire which indicated she did not have a medical condition or a surgical procedure in the previous five years.

She also indicated that she was not aware of any health condition or disability that might affect her ability to undertake the duties of the position she was being offered or that might require special adjustments to her workplace.

The WRC heard that Ms O’Neill, who had left a permanent job of over 13 years to work at the South Infirmary, was absent from work for a significant part of her first nine months in the hospital where she began work in November 2023.

She also suffered a number of falls and fainted once, which were dealt with in accordance with standard procedures.

The WRC heard she had not disclosed that she had been on medical treatment for an abnormal heart rhythm that had been diagnosed when she was 40 at any of four return-to-work interviews but finally did during a medical assessment in October 2024.

Helena O’Neill's case

Ms O’Neill pointed out that she wore a bracelet and lanyard at all times when working at the hospital which identified her medical condition.

She told the WRC she believed she was dismissed because she had suffered a number of incidents at work even though her own doctor had confirmed they were unrelated to her heart condition.

Ms O’Neill stressed that her atrial fibrillation did not affect her ability to do her job. She gave evidence of being shocked and mortified to be accused by the hospital of lying.

During an investigation meeting, Ms O’Neill explained that she believed the questions on the form related to new medical conditions and not ones which were in existence for more than five years.

At a subsequent disciplinary hearing, she claimed a decision to dismiss her had been made and she apologised profusely for not disclosing information about her medical condition. She also claimed that not everybody liked her “outspoken nature”. 

Hospital's case

The WRC heard that the hospital took the decision to dismiss the complainant because of the serious breach of the written undertaking set out in the questionnaire.

The hospital stated gross misconduct included the falsifying of statements and covering up mistakes which could endanger herself, others or the hospital.

On that basis, it said it could no longer have trust and confidence in Ms O’Neill as an employee, and her employment was terminated.

The hospital, which was represented by IBEC, claimed that the complainant was the architect of her own dismissal and had acted in a deceptive manner which put herself and others at risk.

WRC ruling

In her ruling, WRC adjudication officer, Gaye Cunningham found that the hospital had carried out a fair investigation but concluded that the decision to dismiss Ms O’Neill was disproportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Ms Cunningham said the response of a reasonable employer would have been to impose a lesser sanction in circumstances where the complainant had apologised for her error in failing to disclose her condition.

At the same time, the WRC adjudicator said Ms O’Neill had contributed substantially to the situation in that she ought to have provided some indication of her condition.

Ms Cunningham said it was also “somewhat disingenuous” of Ms O’Neill to have tried to blame “health and safety issues” on her dismissal.

She directed the hospital to pay the complainant compensation of €5,144 which she determined was the appropriate amount for a breach of the Unfair Dismissals Act.