A hospital aide at a Dunedin rest-home accused of inappropriate physical contact with a patient was found to be unjustifiably dismissed and awarded $7000 by the Employment Relations Authority last month.
In her determination, authority member Helen Doyle found the investigation carried out by the woman's employer was not fair and reasonable and therefore the decision to dismiss could not properly be reached.
The woman's name and that of her employer were suppressed.
The woman's employer cited three grounds for her dismissal last year - inappropriate physical contact during the cleaning of a woman patient, that she made an inappropriate request for a staff member to view her own genitalia and that she put undue stress on other staff.
Ms Doyle found that on the balance of probabilities the two instances of inappropriate behaviour had not occurred.
A claim of serious misconduct related to the undue stress charge could also not be sustained.
Ms Doyle said it was open to an employer to accept one account of events over another where there was conflict, but in this case there were some matters in regard to the allegations to which the managers investigating the case closed their eyes and did not properly take into account.
While the managers "in all probability felt they were approaching their investigation in a fair and reasonable way with an open mind", Ms Doyle said they did not question why a staff member during the course of the investigation had changed her allegations about the aide's physical contact with the patient.
They had effectively closed their minds to the possibility that the aide might be telling the truth and that she had not engaged in the conduct.
Issues about delays in reporting matters had also not been properly weighed and assessed.
Regarding the allegation of inappropriate physical contact, they did not establish clearly whether the aide recalled cleaning the patient with two other staff, but proceeded to investigate on the basis that she did.
The management also did not undertake further questioning of staff who had complained about the aide after another staff member raised issues about the possible motives of one of them.
The circumstances under which the aide was alleged to have asked a staff member to inspect her genitalia were not properly weighed and considered.
There was no suggestion that the staff member saw her genitals and it was clear from the aide's explanation that she had raised the matter as a medical matter, rather than something sexual.
Ms Doyle accepted the aide, who had worked for the rest-home with a blemish-free exemplary record for more than two years, was very upset to be dismissed in circumstances where she considered she had done nothing wrong but had been made out to be, in her words, "perverted and sick".
The aide appeared to be a very trusting young individual who loved working with the residents, Ms Doyle said.
She did not consider that the aide had contributed to the events that gave rise to her dismissal.
She ordered the rest-home to pay the aide $7000 and also found that she was entitled to reimbursement of lost wages for about six weeks.
The woman had found new employment quite quickly, she said.
