Claimant v North East Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that no one who had any dealings with the Claimant regarding the disciplinary matters knew anything about any disclosure made via the staff survey in December 2023. The staff survey was confidential and administered by a third-party provider such that no individual responses could be identified. The tribunal was entirely satisfied that the dismissal was solely because of the manner of the Claimant's driving on 02 February 2024 and had nothing whatsoever to do with any protected disclosure.
The tribunal found that the respondent did not subject the Claimant to any detriment on the grounds that he made a protected disclosure. The suspension from driving duties and the disciplinary process were motivated entirely by concerns about his driving on 02 February 2024, not by any disclosure.
The tribunal found that the Claimant repudiated the contract of employment by his conduct on 02 February 2024. His driving was a serious breach of the Respondent's essential driving policies, and his lack of insight demonstrated he no longer intended to be bound by those essential terms. The tribunal concluded the conduct struck at the heart of the employment relationship, justifying summary dismissal without notice.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was not put to any substantial disadvantage by the alleged PCPs. He was capable of processing information and communicating effectively throughout the disciplinary process. He did not ask for adjustments (such as green paper or more breaks) and was offered the opportunity to do so. The tribunal also found that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that the Claimant was likely to be placed at the alleged disadvantages.
The tribunal found that none of the decision-makers in the disciplinary process knew the Claimant was disabled. The dismissal had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that he had a disability. A person without the Claimant's disability but who had been the subject of the same complaint would have been dismissed. The tribunal rejected the claim entirely.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was not dismissed because of anything arising in consequence of his disability. He was dismissed because of the standard of his driving on 02 February 2024, which was wholly unconnected to his disabilities. His impeded ability to assimilate or communicate played no part in the motivation of anyone. The section 15 complaint was dismissed.
Withdrawn by claimant
Facts
Mr King was employed as a Community Resuscitation Training Officer by an NHS ambulance trust for less than two years. He was also a volunteer Community First Responder. On 02 February 2024, while driving a Trust vehicle back from a training course, he logged onto the volunteer app and responded to a Category 1 emergency. His driving was captured on an ambulance dashcam and led to a complaint from the ambulance crew. He was investigated, suspended from driving duties, and ultimately dismissed for gross misconduct based on his dangerous driving and lack of insight. The Claimant alleged he had made a protected disclosure about uniform policy via a confidential staff survey and that his dismissal and the disciplinary process discriminated against him due to his dyslexia and ADHD.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that no one involved in the disciplinary process knew of any protected disclosure made via the confidential staff survey, so the dismissal could not have been motivated by whistleblowing. The tribunal found the Claimant's driving repudiated his contract, justifying summary dismissal. Although the tribunal found constructive knowledge of dyslexia, it concluded the Claimant suffered no substantial disadvantage in the disciplinary process and that his disability played no part in his dismissal.
Practical note
Confidential third-party administered staff surveys do not put employers on notice of individual protected disclosures; driving misconduct by an ambulance service employee can amount to repudiatory breach even when responding to an emergency; and claimants alleging reasonable adjustment failures must establish actual substantial disadvantage, not hypothetical difficulties.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2501335/2024
- Decision date
- 30 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Community Resuscitation Training Officer
- Service
- 9 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No