Abusive carer’s multiple warnings

An aged care worker warned for ‘serious misconduct’ four times in 13 months finally resigned without being sacked.

An aged-care worker was warned for “serious misconduct” four times in 13 months over incidents including force feeding too hot food to a resident, showering another with cold water and slapping another’s face before finally resigning without being sacked, the aged-care royal commission has heard.

The worker was given three official warnings, suspended each time and ordered each time to complete an “elder abuse self-­directed learning module”, even though he had completed the module with a 100 per cent score before the first reported incident in March 2015, the commission heard on Wednesday.

As it considers workforce issues in aged care this week, the commission used the case of “UA”, a personal care worker at Japara’s Bayview Aged Care Facility in Melbourne, to explore the consequences of abuse.

The commission heard UA was first suspended in March 2015 after a series of allegations, including continuing to give a resident a cold shower despite her objections, hitting her hand and taking her biscuits away.

While initially categorising these matters as worthy of a “first and final warning” in April 2015, the warning was changed to a “first warning” in June after correspondence between Japara and the Health Workers Union.

UA was ordered to complete the elder abuse online module.

In January 2016, UA was again suspended and given a second warning for misconduct for rough treatment of a resident as he was undressing her. Again, he was ordered to do the elder abuse online module.

In February he was suspended for a third time and given a “final written warning” in March for continuing to make a resident eat food after the resident complained it was too hot.

Finally, a notice in April advising UA he was again suspended amid accusations he had hit a resident across the face was taken no further because he resigned.

Counsel assisting the commission, Peter Rozen QC, suggested to former Japara senior human resources adviser Nicole Farrell that if the March 2015 incident had “stayed a first and final warning, any further instance of serious misconduct would have resulted in termination of UA’s employment”.

“Yes, correct,” Ms Farrell said.

“There wouldn’t have been the later incidents … you agree with that?” Mr Rozen asked.

“I agree with that,” Ms Farrell told the commission.

In considering the impact of the case study, the commission saw a letter from a daughter of one of the residents to Bayview facility manager Dianne Mnich calling for UA to be sacked, and for him not to be trusted around older people.

“I suppose it will be like the Catholic priests who are moved on to offend elsewhere,” the daughter wrote.