Odd disciplinary issue... Any advice welcome!

d123

emsywoo123 wrote: »

Well you pop round and tell all the vets practices in the UK that do this in the UK that they are wrong then

All the vets? As in every vets practice in the entire United Kingdom? Not one complies with the DPA?

Strange, I've had dealings with 2 in my area (and both are in the UK), and both do comply with DPA, and won't release data to people not permitted to have it.

emsywoo123

d123 wrote: »

All the vets? As in every vets practice in the entire United Kingdom? Not one complies with the DPA?

Strange, I've had dealings with 2 in my area (and both are in the UK), and both do comply with DPA, and won't release data to people not permitted to have it.

Why bold that bit? I said "all the vets practices in the UK that do this in the UK"

Classic case of mis-quote/mis-understanding!

ETA: I had no need to mention "UK" twice actually did I? Typing too quickly. #Fail. Apologies if that muddied the water!

Weird_Nev

Goodness me! On to the data protection act already?! What a mess!

I haven't given the full facts! I think they make it a bit identifyable and I have no idea who reads this PUBLIC message board, but here we go:

The person works at "Vet A". They had treated the dog previously but weren't in the course of actively treating it at the time. The next course of action for their pet would be this particular test.
They were away for the day so their brother was taking care of the dog. On their return, he said "The dog hasn't eaten, and hasn't moved from the sofa all day". So, they were going by train to their course, for a week, the very next day staying over 100 miles away for the whole week. Vet A is 40 miles away from their husbands work. Vet B is just a mile away from his work. They can also get the results of this test back in ONE day versus the one week taken by Vet A. Therefore, they phoned Vet B, booked their dog in to have that test done explaining the history. The husband took the dog to that vet the next day for the test. As it happens the test was inconclusive, but that's really not relevant. On booking the dog in, Vet B phoned Vet A and got the histroy transferred over, thus informing Vet A that the dog was there.

Fast forwards a few weeks. THe dogs illness has been a source of discussion in Vet A's, including conversations with the vets who work there but NOT the partners. Then, one of the vets in discussion with one of the partners hints that the dog went to this other practice for tests. Thesubject of all this then gets issued a letter saying (and obviously I can't quote it verbatim as I don't have it, but I have had it read to me over the phone) that the person has:
1) Broken the vets code of conduct in not seeking a second opinion referral.
2) damaged the morale of the staff at the work place.
3) If they cannot satisfactorily explain why they took the pet to another vets, they will be issued with a formal written warning.

Some further facts for the internet experts:
1) They are NOT a vet - the vets code of conduct does not apply to them. Indeed she was not seeking a "second opinion" merely exercising choice in where to get her test carried out.
2) They were, in effect, a client of Vet A. They and their husband make joint decisions about the welfare of their dog, and that decision was to go to a different vet not only because of the service they provide, but because of personal circumstances - AND in fact so that it would not disrupt HER profesisonal development! (she couldnt' go to the course had she taken the dog to Vet A's, partner couldn't do anything except take dog to Vet B without incurring 160 miles round trip in the day - and then of course any prescriptions of follow up visits from vet A would require that reound trip again!)
3) No where in her contract or codes of conduct does is specify that she MUST use Vet A for all her vet services, or indeed that she has to discuss matters concerning her pets with her employers.

emsywoo123 wrote: »

If the VN has broken the Practice's code of conduct, then the correct procedure should be followed.

As far as she can work out, no code of practice has been breached, nor any term of her employment. There is no protocol stating she must or must not do specific things in relation to her own pets vetinary care.

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

At the end of the day its her dog and her money, she can take it where she wants for treatment.

Quite, and I do not see how a employer can dictate what are effectively consumer rights! Or even basic human rights to freedom of choice of goods and services! If you work for Next do you only wear Next clothing? If you work as a mechanic for Ford, must you buy fords and have them serviced where you work?? As already stated, if you stack shelves for Asda, are you forbidden from shopping at Sainsburys if the mood takes you?

Weird_Nev wrote:

The letter states "We are upset that you sought a second opinion without consulting us, and this has negatively impacted the morale of the practice. It is contary to our codes of practice..." Blah blah blah.

emsywoo123 wrote: »

No, not blah blah blah, it is a *very* valid point!

Do you talk to your children like this? I'm sorry I can't recall several hundred words of formal letter ahving had it read down the phone to me once! The pertinent bits are: "You took your dog to another vets without first dicsussing this with us, and this is a breach of our code of practice and has negatively impacted on the morale of staff. If you can't satisfactorily explain why you did this, we propose to issue you with a formal written warning." It really is no more specific than that.

emsywoo123 wrote: »

No, not insanity. Why insane?

Giving formal warnings to members of staff who were in fact clients at the time for actions that breach a code of conduct that does not apply to them doesn't seem.... logical or sensible to me.

Anyway, as far as I can see this is down to an emotional reaction to her choosing to go elsewhere - they are either upset that they were "snubbed" although given her reasons that's plainly not the case, or they are simply angry at lost revenue.

Employers need to recognise that they cannot dictate the lives or choices of their employees: The dog belongs to her and her partner, why should the vet have any say in where it gets treatment?

DVardysShadow

Weird_Nev wrote: »

.... Employers need to recognise that they cannot dictate the lives or choices of their employees: The dog belongs to her and her partner, why should the vet have any say in where it gets treatment?

Very simple. It was the partner's decision. Partner is livid that his wife's employer is threatening his wife's employment over his choice of vet. Partner is now minded to refer vetinary practice to RCVS for unethical behaviour in attempting to coerce him in his part of the decision over the care and treatment of the animal, by spurious threats of disciplinary action against OH.

mountainofdebt

actually I'm surprised that Vets B actually saw the dog in the first place whilst being a patient of Vets A.

I always understood that Vets, whilst not operating a closed shop, were funny about seeing an animal that usually went to another practice

BitterAndTwisted

That might be true but Vet B was not actively treating the animal, it went there to have a particular test carried out.

I'd be doing something along the lines of the "DVardy defence". But I'd probably be leaving the threat of referring the practice to RCVS for unethical behaviour up my sleeve for later.

emsywoo123

She might get a warning, she might not, down to her practice really.

She won't get dismissed for it.

In my experience, Vets are very keen on professional courtesy, not displayed by a member of staff taking their pet (don't bother flapping about if the dog is her's or OH's) elsewhere without even notifying her practice.

I have nothing further to add, I have shared what I know but I'm not sure that I am either a) explaining it clearly enough or b) certain posters aren#t listening so I will bow out now

pauletruth

it does look odd a member of staff taking theredog to another vet. it could be classed asa lack of faith/trust in their employer. what was the special test that the new vet could do that her home practice xould not.

Uncertain

emsywoo123 wrote: »

She might get a warning, she might not, down to her practice really.

She won't get dismissed for it.

In my experience, Vets are very keen on professional courtesy, not displayed by a member of staff taking their pet (don't bother flapping about if the dog is her's or OH's) elsewhere without even notifying her practice.

I have nothing further to add, I have shared what I know but I'm not sure that I am either a) explaining it clearly enough or b) certain posters aren#t listening so I will bow out now

You seem to have a very narrow view based on working for a couple of vets. Whilst that experience is obviously useful to this thread I think you are falling into the trap of assuming that what you have experienced defines the law or even common practice.

I have no experience of vets as a consumer but strangely I have had some considerable dealings with three people, who happen to be vets, as our paths have crossed in other fields. To be honest my opinion of two of them could hardly be lower. Their clinical skills may be excellent, I don't know, but their sheer arrogance and lack of ability to deal reasonably with other people was some of the worst I have ever encountered amongst "professional" people. If I were to make a list of people I would expect to have staff problems they would be at the very top.

WhiteHorse

Weird_Nev wrote: »

They have invited her in for a formal disciplinary hearing saying that unless she can give very good reason for why she took her dog elsewhere, she will be given a formal disciplinary letter ...

This is pure spite. Did the threat come from the principal, a manager or some other jobsworth?

Let them go ahead. Make sure eveything is in writing. No 'informal chats' that can be denied later. Consider covert recordings. Then you will have them over a barrel.