An appeals court panel in Astana reviewed a labor dispute and ruled that the first reprimand against the anesthesiologist was justified only regarding the untimely obtaining of informed consent for anesthesia. Allegations of violating business ethics were not confirmed, and the second reprimand and subsequent dismissal were declared illegal, reports the website infohub.kz.
Initially, two colleagues complained about the doctor's behavior, citing a violation of business ethics standards. After receiving a written explanation, the employer issued a reprimand two weeks later, but subsequently added a new ground in the order — violation of the procedure for obtaining informed consent for anesthesia. The appeals court examined the medical center's internal rules and concluded that consent from the child's legal representatives should have been obtained the day before the operation and again immediately before anesthesia.
The court stated that there was insufficient objective evidence to support the accusations of violating business ethics. Surveillance cameras were operating in the medical center, but recordings confirming any conflicts were not provided to the court, and employee complaints alone were deemed insufficient.
Several months later, the head of the unit submitted a new report citing conflict, emotional behavior, and a tense atmosphere in the team. The employer considered this a repeated misconduct and dismissed the doctor, but the appeals court disagreed.
The court emphasized that general assessments of behavior do not equate to proven disciplinary misconduct. An employee's proactive stance in addressing shortcomings in work organization cannot in itself be considered a violation of business ethics.
The appeals court overturned the first-instance decision and declared the second disciplinary reprimand and dismissal illegal. The doctor was reinstated as an anesthesiologist-resuscitator, and the medical center was ordered to pay back wages for the period of forced absence, compensation for moral damages, and legal costs.
This case highlighted a critical distinction: an employer may punish a specific proven misconduct, but cannot dismiss someone for a difficult personality, emotions, or criticism without substantiated facts.