Opposition Senator Caswell Franklyn is questioning the validity of the charge which the state-run Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH) has brought against one of its senior medical specialists.
Franklyn, who is also a trade union leader, is today claiming that the hospital’s allegation that consultant general surgeon Dr Maurice Walrond breached or was in violation of his contract when he spoke on a radio call-in programme without the expressed permission of the board, is not a listed offence.
“Speaking to the press without their permission is not one of the offences listed in the rules. That was left out,” the outspoken Opposition Senator told Barbados TODAY, noting that he has a copy of the rules.
It is understood that Dr Walrond, who could not be reached for comment, has retained the services of an attorney at law.
When contacted this afternoon, Executive Chairman of the QEH Juliet Bynoe-Sutherland would only tell Barbados TODAY “I do not comment on matters related to employees of the hospital.
“Dr Walrond continues to be a valued member of our team.”
His bargaining agent, the Barbados Association of Medical Practitioners (BAMP) met last night to discuss the kind of support and guidance it can provide Dr Walrond.
However, the acting BAMP President Dr Geoffrey Lafond today confirmed that BAMP would not comment on any decisions of the meeting at this stage.
Dr Walrond was notified of the charge against him in a letter dated May 18, 2020, and signed by Bynoe-Sutherland which said that disciplinary action is being contemplated and could include possible dismissal.
“The offence for which you have been charged at paragraph 1 of this letter is a major offence. If the charge against you is upheld, it may result in disciplinary action against you as provided at rule 5.2.1 of the Terms and Conditions, up to, and including dismissal as provided by rule 5.2.28 of the Terms and Conditions,” Bynoe-Sutherland wrote in her correspondence to Walrond.
The hospital is accusing the doctor of speaking to the press without the expressed permission of the board as stipulated in the employees’ contracts when on two occasions last week, he called in on Starcom Network’s Down To Brass Tacks and made remarks which “have brought, or are likely to bring the QEHB [Queen Elizabeth Hospital Board] into disrepute.”
Speaking on behalf of a group of fellow surgeons, Walrond called the programme and lamented the inadequacies in operating theatres at the QEH and claimed that the hospital’s leadership was not doing enough to keep the environment COVID-19 free.
The consultant general surgeon even suggested that patients who were COVID-19 positive but needed general surgery could find themselves at risk if transferred to the QEH for surgical procedures.
But the Executive Chairman told Walrond in her letter that his statements made without her permission, were in breach or violation of rule 4.9.1 of the Code of Conduct set out in the Terms and Conditions of Service for employees of the QEH.
Bynoe-Sutherland also informed him that an enquiry would be launched into the alleged offence or misconduct and he was told of various rights which are available to him.
Two days after calling the radio programme with his concerns, the doctor wrote BAMP outlining similar issues he and his fellow surgeons were experiencing with the operating theatres at the QEH. In his letter dated May 13, 2020, Walrond said a patient room has been retrofitted for the emergency surgical care of COVID-19 patients at the Enmore complex opposite the QEH.
“It is inadequate, unsafe for patient care, and places medical staff working in that facility at increased risk of infection,” his correspondence stated. He itemized what he termed a subset of deficiencies including that the facility was too small and did not meet certain International Health Facility guidelines. [email protected]
Read our ePaper. Fast. Factual. Free.
Sign up and stay up to date with Barbados' FREE latest news.
Are people who hold high positions in Barbados exist in an alternative universe?
There is no breach of any rule or regulation by the Doctor. This is such a simple matter that it makes one wonder who how certain administrators function in the position they hold.
It should be noted that even if speaking to the press was against the rules, the fact that the authorities contacted the same radio station and requested time to air their views on the matter and did so, erases any chance for these same authorities to bring a case against the Doctor and win.
Any Attorney worth his or her salt would have this nonsense dismissed in less than five minutes. Waste of time by the people running things at QEH.
I think the only “breach” Dr. Waldron committed here was to discuss in public all the secrets the QEH probably wanted kept in private. Now the information is out, hope they”ll do whatever it takes to fix the problems… health and safety should be paramount, especially at a health care facility!
Why is it that Senator Franklyn think that he has to be right on every topic, then again his combative and aggressive style will lead people to think that he is always right. Any person with any knowledge of Government regulations should know that workers should seek permission before speaking to the press. We live in a society regulated by rules and regulations. It is not a free for all Mr. Franklyn
Dr. Walrond did what he felt was necessary to effect change, after exhausting available channels. We need disputers like him that shake the status quo from time to time.
Whistle-blowers in our region suffer a cruel fate – but it wont be long before we thank Dr. Walrond for improving the standards in these COVID times.
Whereas speaking to the media without the board’s expressed permission may not have been written in the rules or even the surgeon’s contract; it was most likely detailed in the hospital’s *non-disclosure agreement. Such agreements are usually read and signed by the employees on the spot, with the only concession being that they could ask for clarification of legal terms before signing. Unlike the contract, the surgeon would not have been given a copy of the non-disclosure agreement to take home and, may have likely forgotten the wording in it. That’s how most companies cover their legal end of things in these instances.
*Other terms used for the non-disclosure agreement include confidentiality agreement, confidential disclosure agreement, proprietary information agreement, or secrecy agreement.