Lifeguard threw boy, 8, into deep end of the pool
A LOCAL council fired a lifeguard after he picked up an eight-year-old boy, spun him in the air and threw him into the deep end at a swimming pool where other children were swimming.
The Workplace Relations Commission rejected his action for unfair dismissal following the incident that took place on February 3, 2016, as the man coached a group of primary school children.
The man was dismissed by letter by the council-owned leisure centre in May but appealed that decision to the council. He was finally dismissed after appeal in July.
CCTV images of the incident showed the boy – who is able to swim – resisting and kicking out before being thrown backwards into the deep end.
Neither the local authority nor the lifeguard are named in the WRC ruling.
Dismissing the lifeguard’s claim for unfair dismissal, WRC adjudication officer Seán Reilly said that it is difficult to understand how anyone could consider what occurred ‘to be other than extremely irresponsible, potentially dangerous and totally inappropriate behaviour; no reasonable person could consider otherwise’.
He said: ‘The behaviour is actually made much worse by the fact that it occurred in swimming pool, where because of the inherent safety risks, safety and safe behaviour is paramount. Even worse, it involved children in a swimming pool, where the safety risks are even greater and the duty of care towards the children is much greater.’ Mr Reilly said: ‘In addition, it involved forcing a child against his will and in the face of his resistance and struggling against, to do something he plainly did not wish to do.’
The lifeguard was suspended on full pay by the council-owned leisure centre pending an investigation and in response to the suspension letter, the lifeguard said: ‘I know it is my fault. I am sorry.’
Twelve days after the incident, the chairperson of the leisure centre met with the parents of the boy and the principal of his school.
Mr Reilly’s report on the claim records that the parents and principal ‘were extremely unhappy that the incident had occurred and were fearful that it could possibly happen again’.
The report states: ‘The boy’s father believed that any adult should understand instinctively that throwing a small boy into deep water was not a correct way to behave.’
The independent investigator appointed by the leisure centre concluded that the lifeguard’s actions constituted gross misconduct.
The investigator reported that the incident took place during playtime and the lifeguard ‘let his guard down and neglected to continue to work in a professional manner.’
The report concluded that the lifeguard failed in his duty of care; that he put children at risk of injury; put the particular child at risk of psychological damage; breached best practice in relation to child protection and placed the board of the leisure centre at risk of being liable for his actions.
The leisure centre stated that the consequences of the lifeguard’s actions could have been much more serious.
The leisure centre submitted that the submitted that the lifeguard’s behaviour constituted serious misconduct and recklessness in his role.
The centre also stated that the confidence and trust in the lifeguard was broken by his actions. In addition, confidence and trust in the leisure centre was undermined in the eyes of the school and the parents in using the facility.
The lifeguard pointed out that the independent investigator did not recommend that he be dismissed.
He said no account had been taken of his genuine contriteness, his apology, his assurance that there would be no repetition and the fact that he had ‘owned up’ immediately.
The lifeguard told the WRC that the child was well known to him and he was fully aware of the child’s swimming abilities.
The instructor also said that while he accepted that what he did was wrong, the child was not at any stage in danger from his actions.
The lifeguard submitted that the decision to dismiss him was excessive and disproportionate and was not justified by the facts and circumstances and did not take into account his previous unblemished and excellent record within the employment.
‘Extremely irresponsible’