HSE hopes to resolve dispute with Aras Attracta nurses

The HSE hopes to resolve a legal dispute with five psychiatric nurses at the Aras Attracta care facility in Co Mayo over the conduct of internal investigations into complaints against them, the High Court has heard.

Talks have been underway between the sides since Ms Justice Deirdre Murphy ruled earlier this month the five were entitled to injunctions restraining the HSE continuing with investigations unless those complied with the HSE's Trust in Care and disciplinary procedures.

The decision affects 12 other Aras Attracta staff subject to the same investigations.

The five - Lyndsey Conway, Carmel Doherty, Mary Prendergast, Vidhya Maverly and Marie Kilcoyne - are being investigated after undercover filming by a reporter with RTE Prime Time Investigates in 2014 of events at the facility, which caters for adults with intellectual disabilities.

All five remain suspended on full pay and none are subject to any criminal proceedings.

The judge granted the injunctions on February 5th after finding they had a strong case the HSE acted in breach of its own procedures governing such investigations.

She criticised the HSE for its "reprehensible" attitude to efforts of the nurses trade union, the Psychiatric Nurses Association (PNA), to resolve internally "serious issues" over conduct of the investigations.

There was no response for three months to inquiries put by the PNA to senior HSE personnel, she said.

The injunctions were to apply pending a full hearing of the action but Peter Ward SC, with Tom Mallon BL, for the HSE, told the judge on Wednesday it was hoped there will be no need for that full hearing.

The HSE, which previously asked the judge to defer formal publication of her ruling, was not seeking any further deferral, he added.

Mr Ward said the five nurses and the PNA have accepted assurances from the HSE that it, and especially its director general, does not generally allow industrial relations correspondence to go unanswered.

The judge asked counsel was he saying there was an error of fact in her judgment on that issue and, if so, to point that out.

Mr Ward said, if there was a full hearing, there would be additional evidence some correspondence from the PNA was not received by those in the HSE to whom it was addressed.

Disputed matters of fact may be left unresolved at injunctions stage and addressed at a full trial but the sides were trying to achieve “an overall resolution”.

Marguerite Bolger SC, for the five, said her side accepted, “in the normal course of events”, the correspondence does not go unanswered.

The context was an effort to resolve the matter relating to the investigation.

The judge said the talks between the sides may obviate the need for the court to make formal orders.

While this matter was adjourned twice since February 5th to facilitate the sides, the court considered, once judgment was given, it belongs to the public and not the parties.

While she heard what the HSE said about assurances concerning general conduct of industrial relations between it and various unions, nothing that had been said contradicted the facts as found by her, the judge said.

No explanation was given during the hearing concerning the HSE’s failure to respond to the PNA correspondence, she added.

She directed her judgment should be formally published now and adjourned making final orders to March 23rd.