Nurse who claimed he witnessed care home worker pour water over resident loses whistleblower claim – The Irish Times

A aid house carer who stated his profession suffered as a result of he reported a associate’s alleged attack on a resident has failed in a whistleblower penalisation declare.

Gerard Foy, an company carer, advised the Place of work Family members Fee that year he was once at paintings at a HSE-run house for sufferers with highbrow disabilities, he noticed a associate, Ms A, “pour water over the head of a resident”.

Giving proof to the occupation tribunal, he stated his view was once that Ms A had “assaulted the resident” and reported it to control – however that he was once left questioning whether or not “any action had ever been taken”.

Mr Foy was once advised at a gathering six months later the incident that he had “broken GDPR” by way of telling alternative colleagues what he noticed and felt he needed to agree to finish a route on information coverage and apologise in writing to Ms A, he mentioned in proof.

He complied “out of fear that he would not get any further work” from the HSE, he added.

On the assembly, he was once additionally advised that if he were a right away worker of the HSE “the incident would not have been reported”, he alleged.

The assembly in October 2020 was once with Eva Hayes, a regional director of nursing for the HSE’s Highbrow Incapacity Residential Products and services, the tribunal heard. In prison submissions to the tribunal, she stated the subject was once referred to Hiqa and “dealt with through the disciplinary procedures”.

She added that any investigation into the incident was once “not a matter for the complainant as any disciplinary matter is confidential”.

Ms Hayes’s proof was once that she had reassured the claimant on the life of the file that he had “done the right thing” and the affected person was once “safeguarded”, because the workman concerned was once taken off the shift.

His barrister, Donnacha Morgan BL, showing urged by way of Sean Ormonde Solicitors, submitted that reporting the abuse incident was once “detrimental to [Mr Foy’s] professional good standing and professional progression”.

His consumer were “isolated, bullied, victimised, and punished by way of reduced hours at times, interference with scheduled work, changed working schedules, potential transfers to other sections and also and perhaps most notably in relation to his failure to gain a permanent position despite being the most senior suitable candidate available”.

Mr Foy lodged his proceedings towards the HSE below the Secure Disclosures Function 2014 and the Protection, Fitness and Welfare at Paintings Function, 2005, in Would possibly 2022.

This adopted his rejection following interview for a group of workers carer submit in February 2022 and a criticism he made about bullying by way of every other associate quickly later, which he claimed was once “never addressed” by way of control.

Adjudicator Louise Boyle dominated that Mr Foy was once out of life to say for any alleged detriment he suffered previous than 27 November 2021, a month six months ahead of his WRC proceedings.

That intended she had incorrect jurisdiction to imagine the allegation that the workman was once “scolded” for reporting the abuse incident right through a provide; being made to apologise to Ms A, the GDPR coaching, and alternative issues.

Ms Boyle stated she may to find incorrect causal hyperlink between Mr Foy’s failure to accumulation the group of workers carer submit and his safe disclosure and made a alike ruling on his criticism that he misplaced out on hours.

The adjudicator additionally stated Mr Foy “appeared to have difficulties articulating specifics” about his declare that he was once additionally refused paintings in alternative paintings places within the provider on substructure of his safe disclosure.

She concluded that the workman had “failed to establish” penalisation which was once connected to safe acts or disclosures right through the life duration in her jurisdiction and unfavourable either one of his proceedings.