workforce
You snooze, you lose
A manager finds two nurses
asleep when they should
have been on duty.
By Scott Trueman
T
here is an obvious employer expectation and condition
of employment that when nurses are at work they are
awake and not sleeping. After all, the employer is paying
for the time that the nurse is at work. This rule does not apply
during unpaid meal breaks. Serious consequences, including
employment dismissal, can follow such misconduct, as a recent
nurse (Nurse A) found.
The employer’s evidence was tendered through a nurse unit
manager (NUM) who was the manager of the facility at the
relevant time. Her evidence in relation to the alleged incident
of sleeping on 20 June 2017 was that she saw Nurse A in the
darkened residents’ lounge, sitting in a chair, head slightly hung,
eyes apparently closed, and her body slouched. It was clear to her
that Nurse A was asleep. The NUM also observed that the other
nurse who was on duty that shift, Nurse C, was sitting in another
chair beside Nurse A with her legs raised on the chair and her head
lowered onto the chair’s armrest. Her eyes looked to be closed
and she also seemed to be asleep.
The NUM stood in the doorway for over a minute during which
there was no movement from either nurse. It was obvious to the
NUM that, being asleep, they did not see her standing there, did
not say anything, and did not acknowledge her presence.
“I was dumbfounded to find that both nurses on duty would be
asleep in the residents’ lounge at the same time. I have never seen
that happen before,” she said.
The NUM then decided to check on staff in other wards within
the facility. She observed two other nursing staff at the nurses’
station. One was attending to some paperwork and the other was
about to walk towards the bathroom. In the course of a discussion
with one of the nurses, the NUM said: “I have just come in and
found the two nurses … asleep. Is that normal?”
While the NUM could not remember the exact reply, it was to
the effect that Nurses A and C had been asleep on duty before.
The NUM returned about 15 minutes later to the residents’
lounge. Both nurses were still in the chairs in the same position,
30 agedcareinsite.com.au
not moving, with their eyes closed. The lights in the room were
still off and there was still light coming from the TV and a gas
heater. She said “good morni ng” quite loudly to wake them and
get their attention. Both appeared to suddenly wake – they sat up
and replied “good morning”. The NUM did not say anything else to
them at the time.
At the completion of the shift, the NUM asked Nurse C
about her and Nurse A being asleep. Nurse C responded with
words to the effect that “we must have nodded off”. Nurse A
later denied being asleep. Both were immediately issued with
warnings pending further investigations of the matter. The
applicant (Nurse A) then refused to attend meetings, or to reply
to directions to provide a response to the allegation against her.
Eventually she was dismissed from her employment for both her
conduct (of sleeping while on duty), and her failure to follow
reasonable and lawful directions (to respond to the allegation
and/or attend meetings).
In response to being dismissed, Nurse A issued proceedings
that her dismissal was unlawful, as it was harsh, unfair or unjust.
The presiding commissioner hearing the matter rejected the
notion that Nurses A and C were not asleep. Importantly, the
commissioner stated that “leaving these patients, 10 residents and
seven acute care patients, without the care of someone who is
awake and alert can be dangerous, or potentially deadly”. “There
were two nurses in charge of 10 residents and seven acute patients
during their shifts, and someone needed to be awake and alert,”
the commissioner said. “These patients were vulnerable ... It is
intrinsic to the duties of a nurse that they look after patients rather
than exposing them to such serious danger.”
The commissioner made it clear that if a nurse did want a nap,
they should do so on their own allotted break and not pursuant to
a break taken by both nurses simultaneously: “There should always
be one [nurse] on duty, alert and available.”
Accordingly, the commissioner held that sleeping on the
job while responsible for vulnerable patients was sufficient to
warrant dismissal. It was further held that the applicant had the
opportunity to respond to the allegation, and had been given a
“fair go all round”. The failure to attend, having been summoned
by the employer (which was reasonable), without a reasonable
justification was a breach of Nurse A’s condition of employment.
As such, her application was denied. The dismissal was deemed
legal and upheld. ■
Scott Trueman is a senior lecturer in the School of Health at the
University of New England.