IDT awards $12.5m to dismissed Bustamante doctor

The Industrial Disputes Tribunal (IDT) on Wednesday handed down a $12.5-million award to Dr Sandra Williams-Phillips, a consultant cardiologist who was unjustifiably dismissed some 11 years ago from the Bustamante Hospital for Children.

In arriving at its decision, the IDT said that because of her unjustifiable dismissal, the doctor would have lost income for the remainder of her contract. The tribunal also took into account the fact that Williams-Phillips would never be able to work again to amass a pension.

The tribunal has also noted efforts by Williams-Phillips to establish a practice, which failed because of the lack of referral. Her age was also taken into consideration in making the award.

In her long journey to justice, the tribunal heard that the consultant cardiologist was employed by the South East Regional Health Authority (SERHA) and assigned to the Bustamante Hospital for Children on a 36-month contract, which took effect on August 3, 2009.

However, in a letter dated January 18, 2010, Williams-Phillips was notified that her contract of employment would be terminated two days later.

The medical practitioner challenged her termination and asked the Ministry of Labour and Social Security to intervene. However, the matter was not resolved and was referred to the IDT for determination and settlement.

The evidence before the IDT was that even though Williams-Phillips and other members of staff sought redress from senior executive members of the hospital for grievances relating to their employment, nothing was done to resolve the issues.

Williams-Phillips contended that SERHA breached the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Relations Code, the Employment (Termination and Redundancy Payments) Act 1974 and the memorandum of understanding for the public sector dated April 18, 2008, which expired March 11, 2010.

Rights violation claims

Williams-Phillips contended that the dismissal was unjust, unreasonable and unfair.

She said that there was a violation of her fundamental rights which included the right to be informed of charges, the right to confront her accuser, the right to be represented and the right to an appeal.

Dr Michelle-Ann Richards-Dawson, senior medical officer (SMO) at the hospital, told the tribunal that Williams-Phillips’ cooperation with professional colleagues, internal and external to the organisation, was poorly rated.

The SMO reported that the consultant cardiologist’s effectiveness in administrative decision-making and understanding her role between the professional and the administrator were also poorly rated.

Richards-Dawson also claimed that Williams-Phillips was unapproachable and confrontational with both junior and senior staff.

edmond.campbell@gleanerjm.com