An employee must be told of the charge against him/her

Jul 28, 2016 Letters

Dear Editor,
From public reporting Colleen Hicks, Director of Nursing Services/Matron of the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation (GPHC), has been sent on administrative leave to pave the way for an inquiry. It is commendable that the GPHC is respecting of the established principle of applying Administrative Leave to conduct an inquiry into work related issues.
Institutions within recent times have been sending workers on annual vacation leave to pave the way to conduct an inquiry which is a transgression of the worker’s right, in the absence of exigencies, to use his/her earned leave at one’s discretion. With that being said, sending a worker on administrative leave, the administration has a responsibility to inform the worker of the reason(s) behind the action. In the case of Ms. Hicks it is said this is being done to pave the way for an inquiry, but this in itself is deficient, given that it has not been made known “what” the inquiry is about.
It can be assumed from public reporting that the GPHC Board of Directors has sent Ms. Hicks on administrative leave without specifically identifying the issue(s) she has been interdicted for. In industrial relations principles and practices, under which all, unionised and non-unionised workers fall, they must be told in writing specifically what the charge(s) is/are against them. From the media it is learnt the hospital is short of nurses both in staffing complement and specialised skills. The matron is responsible for the delivery of nursing care to the patients. The staffing of the hospital is not the responsibility of the matron but that of the Chief Executive Officer/Administrator and the Board. The matron’s responsibility with regards to staffing is to recommend, and those within the employ of the institution ensured that they are deployed for patient care based on needs and exigencies.
The other issue used as a charge to send the matron on leave is that she has been insubordinate to her principals (i.e. Board and CEO). Acting CEO, Allan Johnson, has displayed a decency which is rare among public officials in making known the matron has not been insubordinate to him. Then there is another issue where it is being said the matron is not taking directive from the doctors. It must be said in the command structure of the hospital the doctors are not the principals of the matron. There is a co-relationship between the nurses and doctors in the delivery of health services. It should be noted too that each of the profession has its own role and responsibilities.
And while the GPHC has no established rules where the matron has reporting and commanding relationship to the doctors, what the hospital administration should seek to foster is mutual respect and camaraderie between the two groups to ensure the discharge of quality health services. The GPHC is a public institution and with the stated facts above, what the society needs to hear from the Board and CEO are:
1. What measures will be put in place to ensure the institution has the appropriate complement of nursing staff?
2. What measures will be put in place to foster improved relationship between the nurses and doctors in the delivery of quality health care, mindful of and respecting that each has its unique role and responsibilities and has been so trained?
3. When will a Benefit Package be put in place to attract and retain the staff needed to deliver the quality of health care the public deserves?
The Board is encouraged to step back from the manner in which the issue is presently being handled and recognize that the problems of the hospital are not represented in the matron. The problems at GPHC are systemic and they include the misunderstanding of roles and responsibilities between the hospital’s frontline caregivers.
Lincoln Lewis

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News