Sign up now for ease of access to The Medical Independent, Ireland’s most frequently published medical newspaper, delivering award-winning news and investigative reporting.

  • receive the eCopy two days prior to the printed edition.
  • can partake in our online MCQs.
  • can enter our online sports quiz.


Medicalindependent.ie is Ireland's only investigative medical news website for doctors, healthcare professionals and anyone with an interest in health issues.

Established in 2010, along with its sister publication The Medical Independent, our stated aim is to investigate and analyse the major issues affecting healthcare and the medical profession in Ireland. The Medical Independent has won a number of awards for its investigative journalism, and its stories are frequently picked up by national digital, broadcast and print media. The Medical Independent is published by GreenCross Publishing.

Address: Top Floor, 111 Rathmines Road Lr, Dublin 6

Tel: 353 (01) 441 0024

GreenCross Publishing is owned by Graham Cooke.

You are reading 1 of 2 free-access articles allowed for 30 days

Consultant psychiatrist receives €4k in protected disclosure dispute

By Paul Mulholland - 21st Oct 2019 | 40 views

The Labour Court has ruled that a consultant psychiatrist should be paid €4,000 as a result of a protected disclosure dispute, the Medical Independent can report.

The consultant psychiatrist, who was based in a mental healthcare facility, outlined that he made a protected disclosure on 2 March 2016, raising patient care issues involving a psychologist colleague.

He also made a ‘dignity at work’ complaint, which did not progress beyond an initial screening.

The psychologist then made a dignity at work complaint against him, which was later referred to investigation. The focus of the consultant’s issue was that the mental healthcare provider was using the ‘dignity at work complaint’ against him and relying on the information he disclosed in the protected disclosure.

The consultant, who was represented by the IHCA, asserted that he has been penalised for making a protected disclosure, which was denied by the provider. 

He later ended his employment with the provider because of a “bigger issue” linked to the work environment and patient care.

The provider stated that the “only detriment referred to by the complainant is the respondent’s decision to proceed with the investigation of the dignity at work complaint against him”.

The Labour Court said it was clear from the evidence that the consultant was concerned about how the psychologist carried out her duties with children and young people accessing the mental health service.

“The first issue is that the respondent did not comply with its own policy in handling the complainant’s protected disclosures,” according to the court.

“It sought to agree terms of reference with the complainant, but this is not a step provided for in the policy. It obviously delayed the progress of the investigation into the protected disclosures. It also changed the complainant’s role from being the discloser, as provided by the policy, to a more involved role, where he should agree terms of reference.”

The court noted the respondent’s protected disclosures policy and its statutory underpinning in the code of practice and the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.

It ordered financial compensation to the consultant of €4,000 for the loss and inconvenience incurred.

Leave a Reply

Latest
Latest Issue
medical news
The Medical Independent 19th May 2022

You need to be logged in to access this content. Please login or sign up using the links below.

Most Read