A senior doctor has failed to prove he was wrongfully dismissed after an investigation into his text messages with a junior doctor. Photo / 123RF
A senior doctor has failed to prove he was wrongfully dismissed after an investigation into his text messages with a junior doctor. Photo / 123RF
A senior doctor who once told a junior colleague “if you look at me with that cheeky smile, you could get whatever you want”, has failed to prove he was wrongfully sacked.
The hospital doctor carried on a flirtatious text exchange with the younger woman until she complained after becoming uncomfortable working with him.
His job loss at the former Northland District Health Board was linked to a “major depressive episode” as a result of the ongoing uncertainty and distress caused by the complaint process, the Employment Relations Authority [ERA] said in a decision released this month.
The authority said the DHB, now Te Whatu Ora, did not breach any duty of good faith with the doctor, who claimed he’d been unjustifiably dismissed and was therefore unjustifiably disadvantaged over what had happened.
Events unfolded in April 2020 after a registrar with whom the senior medical officer had been communicating via text – some of it “cheeky” and “flirty” – complained she was no longer comfortable working alongside him.
The doctor, whose name is suppressed, admitted the exchanges between him and the registrar who at times reported to him, and that at some stage the boundary had become blurred.
The man said as the pair sent responses and read the replies the repartee became more risque.
“I said something close to cheeky and got a cheeky response back. It was quite entertaining,” he told the ERA.
“At the time I thought this was something perhaps ‘flirty’ that you would say in social interactions.”
He conceded he had crossed a line but admitted to being shocked when confronted with the news a complaint had been laid.
In hindsight, he said the conversation went too far.
“It was inappropriate and unprofessional. I am embarrassed.”
A senior doctor concedes that his text messages with a junior doctor, who he supervised, went too far. Photo / 123RF
The registrar provided details of the alleged behaviour and of text messages between them to her supervisor.
She said it had taken time to gather the courage to come forward with her complaint, but the thought of being on a ward week with the doctor, unable to avoid working closely with him, prompted her decision.
She later admitted she was ashamed about what had occurred and her contributions to the texting exchange.
In early May 2020 the DHB offered the doctor paid leave while it investigated.
On May 28 he responded that his conduct had been inappropriate and he now had a “much better understanding of the feelings of discomfort” caused to the complainant.
He added he was embarrassed to have been the cause of her confusion and anxiety.
“I also now feel ashamed that what I thought of as sardonic attempts at witticisms were so hurtful.”
He said he had never previously thought about himself in terms of power but now had more insight into the “shadow cast by the presence of a senior member of the team in a group, and about the power imbalances between senior doctors, especially male”.
“This also means that it is very difficult for junior doctors and others to challenge inappropriate behaviour.
“I take full responsibility for my actions and I feel embarrassed and ashamed that my behaviour has caused distress to her for several months.”
During an investigation interview that followed the doctor accepted he’d sent the texts, and confirmed he had told the junior doctor that she was “more fun to text than she is in real life” and “if you look at me with that cheeky smile, you could get whatever you want”.
He explained it was a phrase he often used when asked for, and granting, a favour.
He also said he had made the statements during his interview under duress because he was concerned he would lose his job, and because the union representative had told him the health board would be looking for a restorative process.
He believed that if he accepted responsibility, that would be the best way to achieve a conciliatory outcome with no blame being attached to him.
The DHB was not aware of any agreement the investigation would be a restorative or no-blame process.
The investigation concluded the doctor’s conduct had breached the DHB’s policies, code of conduct and values, and that he had displayed unprofessional conduct in his capacity as a senior doctor, which the doctor did not agree with.
He raised a personal grievance in August 2020, stating he had been disadvantaged by the way the complaint was investigated, and it should be independently investigated.
The same month the doctor was admitted to hospital for a stress-induced illness, and was unable to attend meetings to discuss investigation findings and his return to work.
By November 2020 the DHB began to consider its options, after he’d been absent from work for three months.
The ERA noted medical certificates did not contain significant detail about either the doctor’s condition or his expected date of return to work.
During the doctor’s absence the DHB hired a locum in addition to paying the doctor’s full salary, the costs of which were becoming “significant and ongoing”.
The doctor agreed to a medical and mental health assessment, and after some delay in getting this done, it was alleged his health issues were a direct consequence of “the incompetent and high-handed manner in which the NDHB conducted its investigation”.
In April 2021 the doctor was informed of a preliminary decision to end his employment, for reasons around medical incapacity.
He said he wanted to return but needed to return to a safe environment which the DHB was statutorily obliged to deliver.
In August 2021, the doctor claimed in another PG he had been unjustifiably dismissed, and unjustifiably disadvantaged by the investigation, along with a claim the DHB breached its duty of good faith.
The ERA ultimately found there was no breach of good faith toward the doctor and throughout the investigation and disciplinary processes, and the medical incapacity period, it was communicative and responsive.
