Cook's "reckless" handling of incident resulted in elderly resident's fall
A Saskatchewan long-term care facility was justified in firing a cook who was involved in a physical incident with a resident, the Canada Arbitration Board has ruled. Brian Watson-Colter, 61, worked as a cook at the Ituna Pioneer Health Care Centre, where his primary responsibilities were to prepare meals and serve them to the residents. He occasionally assisted the centre’s special care aides in seating or moving residents if asked but it was not part of his official job duties. On June 30, 2006, he was involved in an incident where an elderly resident fell to the floor during a dispute over seating for dinner.
The resident had sat in a chair usually occupied by another resident, who took exception and began an argument. A special care aide attempted to convince him to move to another chair, but the resident refused. Upon hearing the commotion, Watson-Colter came out of the kitchen to help. He told the resident to get out of the chair and when he refused, Watson-Colter reportedly tipped the chair forward. The resident, who was in his 80s, fell forward onto the floor. An incident report was filed and the centre began an investigation.
The investigation found Watson-Colter’s account of the incident varied in different interviews and concluded he was an unreliable source for accurate information. He also refused to accept responsibility for his role in the incident or acknowledge that his actions played a part in the resident’s fall. The special care aide, however, was considered reliable and stated she had things under control and had not requested Watson-Colter’s assistance.
After interviewing the parties and considering the health authority’s zero-tolerance policy on resident abuse, the centre’s administrators decided to fire Watson-Colter. Though not all cases of resident abuse resulted in termination, the administrators felt Watson-Colter’s failure to acknowledge responsibility or show regret made it unlikely discipline would suffice.
The arbitration board found Watson-Colter was responsible for the chair tipping forward and causing the resident to fall to the floor and noted “employees in the health-care field are properly held to a very high standard of conduct. That is necessary to ensure that residents and patients are treated properly and with dignity and respect.”
The board also noted the collective agreement and the health authority’s policy allowed for disciplinary measures “up to and including dismissal.” Particularly, the administration was allowed an element of discretion in instances of resident abuse. In this case, the board found Watson-Colter’s actions were “reckless, rash and certainly lacked caution.” Combined with his failure to accept any responsibility for the incident, this was a serious breach of policy and behaviour deserving of maximum discipline. Considering resident abuse was the most serious misconduct an employee could commit, the board agreed termination was an appropriate course of action for the centre to take.
“While termination is not the only response permissible in cases of resident abuse, Mr. Watson-Colter’s reckless behaviour, coupled with his reluctance to accept responsibility for what happened and his lack of remorse, leaves us with no confidence that Mr. Watson-Colter would act safely and with good judgment in the future,” the board said.
“We have concluded that his termination was justified. In the circumstances lesser discipline would be neither ‘just and reasonable’ nor ‘just and equitable’.” See C.U.P.E., Local 4980 v. Sunrise Health Region, 2007 CarswellNat 476 (Can. Arb. Bd.).
The resident had sat in a chair usually occupied by another resident, who took exception and began an argument. A special care aide attempted to convince him to move to another chair, but the resident refused. Upon hearing the commotion, Watson-Colter came out of the kitchen to help. He told the resident to get out of the chair and when he refused, Watson-Colter reportedly tipped the chair forward. The resident, who was in his 80s, fell forward onto the floor. An incident report was filed and the centre began an investigation.
The investigation found Watson-Colter’s account of the incident varied in different interviews and concluded he was an unreliable source for accurate information. He also refused to accept responsibility for his role in the incident or acknowledge that his actions played a part in the resident’s fall. The special care aide, however, was considered reliable and stated she had things under control and had not requested Watson-Colter’s assistance.
After interviewing the parties and considering the health authority’s zero-tolerance policy on resident abuse, the centre’s administrators decided to fire Watson-Colter. Though not all cases of resident abuse resulted in termination, the administrators felt Watson-Colter’s failure to acknowledge responsibility or show regret made it unlikely discipline would suffice.
The arbitration board found Watson-Colter was responsible for the chair tipping forward and causing the resident to fall to the floor and noted “employees in the health-care field are properly held to a very high standard of conduct. That is necessary to ensure that residents and patients are treated properly and with dignity and respect.”
The board also noted the collective agreement and the health authority’s policy allowed for disciplinary measures “up to and including dismissal.” Particularly, the administration was allowed an element of discretion in instances of resident abuse. In this case, the board found Watson-Colter’s actions were “reckless, rash and certainly lacked caution.” Combined with his failure to accept any responsibility for the incident, this was a serious breach of policy and behaviour deserving of maximum discipline. Considering resident abuse was the most serious misconduct an employee could commit, the board agreed termination was an appropriate course of action for the centre to take.
“While termination is not the only response permissible in cases of resident abuse, Mr. Watson-Colter’s reckless behaviour, coupled with his reluctance to accept responsibility for what happened and his lack of remorse, leaves us with no confidence that Mr. Watson-Colter would act safely and with good judgment in the future,” the board said.
“We have concluded that his termination was justified. In the circumstances lesser discipline would be neither ‘just and reasonable’ nor ‘just and equitable’.” See C.U.P.E., Local 4980 v. Sunrise Health Region, 2007 CarswellNat 476 (Can. Arb. Bd.).
