Claimant v South Western Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust

The tribunal found that the Datix report submitted on 4 March 2022 was a protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996, because the Claimant reasonably believed he was raising concerns about health and safety (feeling unsafe to work extended hours as an ambulance driver) in the public interest. However, all substantive claims of detriment flowing from this protected disclosure failed.

The tribunal found that none of the alleged detriments (failure to investigate adequately, refusal to recognise bullying, reduction in pay, refusal to implement requests, etc.) were done on the ground that the Claimant had made a protected disclosure. The Respondent consistently offered mediation and wanted the Claimant back at work. The Claimant refused to engage with internal processes including submitting a formal grievance.

The Respondent accepted the Claimant was disabled by reason of PTSD, anxiety and depression. However, the tribunal rejected claims of discrimination arising from disability under s.15 EqA 2010. The Claimant was able to put in a grievance and attend meetings despite being signed off sick, as evidenced by his engagement with threatening letters to the CQC and ET proceedings. Any treatment was justified as proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim of following employment policies.

The tribunal found no substantial disadvantage arising from the PCPs (requirement to submit formal grievance, attend hearings, application of sick pay policy). The Claimant could have submitted a grievance by cutting and pasting his Datix. He was able to engage with external processes and attend at least one meeting. The Respondent's procedures were reasonable.

The tribunal found that none of the alleged conduct (failure to investigate, refusal to recognise bullying, reduction in pay, chance encounter with Tony Albert, phone call from HR) amounted to unwanted conduct which could reasonably be regarded as violating the Claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating environment. The Respondent's focus was to get the Claimant back to work through mediation.

The Respondent conceded the Claimant made protected acts through his letters and work-related absence application. However, the tribunal found no prima facie case of detriment because of those protected acts. The alleged detriments (failure to investigate, refusal to implement requests, reduction in pay) were not causally linked to the protected acts but to the Claimant's refusal to engage with internal processes.