Caroline Petrie: the outcome

I posted about the Caroline Petrie case here, examining what I still think were the professional and religious considerations relevant to the case. I have been meaning for a few days now to post on the outcome of her case.

Within the disciplinary processes of an employer, the proceedings of a disciplinary investigation (and a hearing, should one take place) are rightly confidential - they are personal and sensitive events. This puts a limit in what has emerged into the public domain with regard to the outcome of Caroline Petrie's case. The source material that is available for commenting on the outcome is:


pages - here and here - at the website of the Christian Legal Centre, who supported Caroline Petrie in her case


two statements of the North Somerset NHS Trust, which can be found from the press releases page of the Trust website.

From these sources, I have arrived at the following view of Caroline's case and its outcome:

1. Caroline Petrie did not, strictly speaking, "face the sack". What actually took place was an investigation within her employer's disciplinary procedures. If this investigation had decided that there was a case of misconduct to answer, and a subsequent disciplinary hearing had found that Caroline had indeed behaved incorrectly, then one of the disciplinary sanctions among others available for a serious offence would have been dismissal.

2. Caroline Petrie was suspended from work while the investigation took place. The unfortunate thing about this from Caroline Petrie's point of view was that, since she worked as a "bank nurse" rather than being directly employed by the Trust, this supsension ended up being unpaid. In most other situations, the suspension would have been with full pay. Strictly speaking, suspension is a "neutral act" giving no indication of innocence or guilt with regard to the matter being investigated. However, suspending a member of staff does indicate that the matter being investigated is very serious and might, should it proceed to hearing, involve dismissal.

3. The finding of the disciplinary investigation was that no disciplinary action would be taken. This is indicated by the following sentence from the North Somerset NHS Trust statement of 3rd February: "The background is that two separate concerns were reported from a carer and
a patient about the way a nurse offered her personal religious beliefs and that has been investigated but no disciplinary action has been taken at this time." However, the Trust statement of 3rd February suggests, and the statement of 5th February makes explicit, that guidance or advice was given to Caroline Petrie within the context of the investigation. This advice in essence is that, for staff whose principal role is other than the giving spiritual care, the initiative or first step in this area rests with the patient and not with the Trust staff. This is expressed in both the Trust statements of 3rd February and 5th February: "Regarding spiritual support by staff whose principal role is not to offer spiritual support, the initiative needs to rest with the patient and not with the caregiver. The personal views/beliefs and practices of the caregiver should be secondary to the needs of the patient and the requirements of competent professional practice." [The Christian Legal Centre report that Caroline Petrie attended a "disciplinary hearing", but the wording of the NHS Trust statements seems more to me to suggest that this was a meeting as part of the investigatory process.]

4. It is interesting to note that the Trust statements do not refer at all to equality and diversity policies, though some might want to argue an implicit reference to equality and diversity practice. Instead the focus of the disciplinary investigation appears to have been around the question of professional practice and the projection of personal beliefs in the clinical context. In my view, this is a very important point to appreciate about the case.

5. There is an important recognition that staff who hold religious beliefs are not expected to leave those beliefs behind when they arrive at work.

6. However, this recognition has a qualification attached, a qualification which is expanded in the Trust statement of 5th February by the addition of the reference to the beliefs of the patient: "Nurses like Caroline do not have to set aside their faith, but personal beliefs and practices should be secondary to the needs and beliefs of the patient and the requirements of professional practice." In most conceivable circumstances this qualification will not be problematical - a nurse or other medical professional will be able to carry out their tasks with regard to patients without it being in conflict with their religious beliefs. And attached to the preceding sentence referring to the context of the provision of spiritual care, it simply recognises the idea that the first step should come from the patient rather than the care giver - not, in my view, a problematical point. But, if the principle is detached from its context, it does become potentially problematical for a committed Christian, as it suggests that a code of professional conduct should take priority over their religious belief.

7. If the behaviour of staff of the North Somerset Trust towards Caroline Petrie in the course of her suspension is as described by the Christian Legal Centre website - a clear threat, before the carrying out of an investigation, that disciplinary action would be taken, for example - then it falls short of what one might expect of professional human resources practice. It contrasts sharply with the care of the subsequent Trust press statements.

What I am not sure about is the value of claiming in the media that Caroline Petrie was subject to a more serious threat of dismissal than the outcome seems to suggest was the case. Creating the impression of a significant threat to the positions of Christians who work in public services might well communicate to employers the message that there is a mobilisation of Christian's in providing legal defence for those under threat. But it could equally spread a message of a vulnerability of Christians. A more cautious media message might well be for the best.