ETHICAL SCENARIO Victimisation of staff By the time Ms C took maternity leave, she had been working in the palliative care unit of St Joseph's Hospital for 10 years. Upon her return to work, Ms C asked for reduced hours in order to be able to carry out her duties as a carer at home. However, she was not returned to palliative care but was rostered on to other hospital wards. MSC specifically requested that she not be rostered on to a 'locked ward'—that is, the psychiatric wardas some of the patients there exhibited challenging behaviours and Ms C had a previous history of suffering domestic violence. Her presence in such an environment made her physically sick. Nonetheless, the hospital continued to roster her on to the psychiatric ward on a 'take it or leave it basis, and Ms C eventually left and brought her action. The case came before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal on allegations that the hospital had discriminated against Ms Con the basis of her gender and her responsibilities as a carer, and had subsequently victimised her for bringing forward these allegations in order to teach her a lesson'. The hospital was found guilty of discrimination and victimisation of an employee. However, the hospital lodged an appeal, and the findings of discrimination were overthrown. The matter was sent back to the original tribunal to rehear the victimisation allegation alone. Section 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) outlaws the victimisation of anyone making an allegation of discrimination. This allegation was upheld by the tribunal even in the absence of an unlawful discrimination finding. Ms C was awarded $23665 in damages for economic loss. Source: Corny v Steps Hospital Ltd [2009] NSWADT 40 (25 February). CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS 1 Was Ms C correct în claiming that she had been discriminated against? 2 Was Ms C correct in claiming that she had been victimised?
ETHICAL SCENARIO Victimisation of staff By the time Ms C took maternity leave, she had been working in the palliative care unit of St Joseph's Hospital for 10 years. Upon her return to work, Ms C asked for reduced hours in order to be able to carry out her duties as a carer at home. However, she was not returned to palliative care but was rostered on to other hospital wards. MSC specifically requested that she not be rostered on to a 'locked ward'—that is, the psychiatric wardas some of the patients there exhibited challenging behaviours and Ms C had a previous history of suffering domestic violence. Her presence in such an environment made her physically sick. Nonetheless, the hospital continued to roster her on to the psychiatric ward on a 'take it or leave it basis, and Ms C eventually left and brought her action. The case came before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal on allegations that the hospital had discriminated against Ms Con the basis of her gender and her responsibilities as a carer, and had subsequently victimised her for bringing forward these allegations in order to teach her a lesson'. The hospital was found guilty of discrimination and victimisation of an employee. However, the hospital lodged an appeal, and the findings of discrimination were overthrown. The matter was sent back to the original tribunal to rehear the victimisation allegation alone. Section 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) outlaws the victimisation of anyone making an allegation of discrimination. This allegation was upheld by the tribunal even in the absence of an unlawful discrimination finding. Ms C was awarded $23665 in damages for economic loss. Source: Corny v Steps Hospital Ltd [2009] NSWADT 40 (25 February). CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS 1 Was Ms C correct în claiming that she had been discriminated against? 2 Was Ms C correct in claiming that she had been victimised?
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
