Claimant v University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust

The Tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct, which is a potentially fair reason. The employer held a genuine belief in the misconduct based on reasonable grounds following a reasonable investigation. The procedure was fair overall. The sanction of dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses given the serious patient safety risks and loss of trust and confidence.

The Claimant alleged dismissal was due to protected disclosures, specifically an email to Steve Harris on 16 October 2023. The Tribunal found this email had no bearing on the dismissal decision or its timing. The dismissal had been decided following disciplinary hearings concluded on 12 October 2023, before the email was sent. The Tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was misconduct, not whistleblowing.

All detriment claims relating to protected disclosures were brought out of time. The Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the Claimant to have brought these claims in time. She provided no medical evidence to support her assertion that mental health prevented her from doing so, and she was able to engage fully in the disciplinary process. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear these claims.

The whistleblowing detriment claims (grievance not taken seriously, unsuccessful job interview, no feedback, pay deduction for unauthorised absence, reference to unspecified concerns, misstatement about lateness to team building) were all out of time and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for them to have been brought in time. The claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.