CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
The nurse had worked night shifts only, stating that a combination of anxiety and her son’s serious mental health illness precluded her from working during the day
Mary Ruth Marcos had worked at Marymount University Hospital since 2002. File picture: Denis Minihane
A nurse has had a complaint of unfair dismissal from a hospital in Cork City dismissed after the Workplace Relations Commission concluded her working a second job had justified an investigation into her conduct.
Mary Ruth Marcos had worked at Marymount University Hospital since 2002. Since 2016 she had worked night shifts only, stating that a combination of anxiety and her son’s serious mental health illness precluded her from working during the day.
She took the case against the hospital after a disciplinary process taken against her agreed she could continue working at the hospital, but only if she were willing to work day shifts only for six months.
That disciplinary process had initially concluded that Ms Marcos should be dismissed, a ruling she had successfully challenged on appeal.
The investigation into the nurse’s conduct was initiated in July 2024 when the hospital became aware she had been working during the day with a patient who had also been under the hospital’s care, with that relationship progressing from companionship to more involved caring for which she received sporadic remuneration.
Ms Marcos contended there were no specific provisions in the hospital’s charters requiring her to disclose that external work. The hospital acknowledged this to be the case, but said professional obligations should dictate that such disclosures be made.
The nurse took her W orkplace Relations Commission (WRC) case after retiring from the hospital rather than accede to the ruling that she must work day shifts only.
She argued that requirements had made it impossible to continue to work given her own diagnosed anxiety, saying that working during the day made her “uneasy”, and that making her do so amounted to constructive dismissal.
The hospital said there was no clinical reason why Ms Marcos could not work day shifts and that to have her work in that manner for a period of time made sense given the supervision which would be necessary in the aftermath of the disciplinary process.
WRC ruling
The WRC’s adjudicating officer Thomas O’Driscoll noted the bar for proving constructive dismissal in Ireland is “very high”.
He concluded Ms Marcos had been planning retirement in advance of declining to return to work given she had sought prior advice on her pension options, something he described as a “central feature” of the case.
Mr O’Driscoll said it had been “appropriate and necessary” for an investigation to have been launched when it became clear Ms Marcos had engaged in parallel work involving a patient of the hospital.
He concluded that the hospital’s actions had not been so unreasonable as to justify Ms Marcos’s resignation.
