The High Court has refused Annette Hughes’s application for judicial review of her dismissal by the Irish Blood Transfusion Service (IBTS), leaving in place the dismissal decision and the later decision rejecting her appeal. Mr Justice McDermott delivered judgment on 30 April 2019.
Ms Hughes, a former Assistant Director of Nursing, was dismissed on 20 June 2017 after an internal disciplinary process found that she had committed gross insubordination. The finding concerned her response to an instruction from the Director of Nursing, Mary McArdle, after four managers raised complaints about Ms Hughes’s workplace behaviour. Those complaints included allegations of micromanagement, undermining and a negative working atmosphere; the judgment does not make findings on those separate complaints.
The parties disputed what Ms McArdle had instructed Ms Hughes to say to the four employees. An investigator, Michael Stirling, found that a clear instruction had been given and not followed. The court held that the investigation was conducted under the IBTS disciplinary procedure, and that Ms Hughes had notice of the allegation and an opportunity to challenge evidence at the disciplinary hearing. The court also found that the investigation’s terms of reference had been amended to clarify that the investigator would make factual findings, not disciplinary findings.
Operations Director Paul McKinney upheld the gross insubordination allegation and dismissed Ms Hughes. Chief Executive Andrew Kelly later rejected her appeal and affirmed the dismissal. The court considered Ms Hughes’s arguments that the process was unfair, that Mr Nessan Rickard’s role compromised decision-making, and that dismissal was disproportionate. It rejected those grounds, finding that Mr Rickard’s role was within the disciplinary procedure and that Mr McKinney made an independent decision. The court also found that the appeal had considered the grounds raised, while noting that it was not a rehearing.
The judgment records that a separate investigation into the dignity-at-work complaints was incomplete when Ms Hughes was dismissed. A report finding one complaint unfounded was completed by 7 July 2017, but was not provided to Ms Hughes or Mr Kelly until weeks after the appeal decision. The court said these later developments did not provide grounds for relief.
The court also held that the Employment Appeals Tribunal was the more appropriate forum for resolving the factual issues raised, and found that Ms Hughes had acquiesced in core procedures. It was not satisfied that the dismissal decision was unreasonable, irrational or disproportionate. The application was refused; the court did not conduct a rehearing of the underlying workplace allegations.