Sacking of nurse justified, ERA rules

Northland District Health Board was justified in sacking an experienced public health nurse for carrying out vaccinations without an emergency "crash kit", the Employment Relations Authority has ruled.
However, the authority found that the way the board suspended the woman before her sacking was unjustified and it has to pay her $3000 compensation for the injury to her feelings.
Natalie Lewers was first suspended then sacked by the DHB in the latter half of last year after she administered a vaccine to students at a Northland school without a back-up "crash kit".
Under Ministry of Health rules, the kit, which contains medical items such as oxygen and adrenalin in case of reaction to the vaccine, has to be on hand.
Ms Lewers, who was employed as a public health nurse, took her case to the ERA claiming both the suspension and dismissal were unjustified.
Ms Lewers' responsibilities included carrying out immunisation programmes for students at schools. She is a highly qualified and experienced nurse, having completed nursing qualifications to "expert" level as well as several post-graduate papers.
The vaccination team were at a school when it was noticed that the "crash kit" had not been included in the equipment for the vaccinations, the ERA heard.
Ms Lewers, as team co-ordinator, decided to go ahead with the vaccinations while another nurse went to get the kit.
She told the court the decision to go ahead was based on the fact that in the unlikely event a student suffered a reaction the school had some of the equipment in its medical room and a nearby medical centre also had the emergency equipment.
Ms Lewers also said there were time constraints on using the school's facilities; and none of the students to be vaccinated had experienced any bad effects during earlier vaccinations.
Ms Lewers was initially suspended by the DHB and dismissed following an investigation.
ERA member Rosemary Monaghan said this was not simply a matter of a senior and experienced person making a poor decision in the face of pressure.
"This is a matter of a senior and experienced person who considered herself an expert substituting her own judgment for that contained in a well-known clinical standard. Her conduct was not adolescent personal behaviour ... rather it was a significant decision made in a clinical matter," Ms Monaghan found.
She said there were flaws in the disciplinary procedure.
"However because of my overall view, as well as the more specific findings detailed in this determination, I find dismissal was the action a fair and reasonable employer would take in the circumstances. Accordingly, the dismissal was justified."
But the DHB was ordered to pay Ms Lewers $3000 in compensation for the injury to her feelings caused by her unjustified suspension.
Ms Lewers said she was considering whether to appeal against the decision.