Claimant v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust

Ms. Dhanoia granted the claimant paid special leave to attend an Employment Tribunal hearing in October 2020. The tribunal found no detriment was suffered by the claimant and the respondent's actions were not connected with the national minimum wage. The claimant's request was approved without issue.

The tribunal found the claimant was not permanently redeployed and that her substantive role had not been advertised. There was no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant resigned on 30 December 2021, three months after redeployment in September 2021, which constituted affirmation or waiver of any alleged breach.

The tribunal found that two protected disclosures were made by the claimant regarding staffing levels and a malfunctioning machine. However, the subsequent complaints and investigation by Ms. Almeida and others were not connected to the protected disclosures. Delays in investigation were due to Covid-19, increased workload, and the claimant's refusal to cooperate, not retaliation. Ms. Erwin's recommendations were appropriate and not a detriment.

The tribunal found that the respondent investigated the claimant for speaking in Filipino with colleagues following a genuine complaint from Ms. Almeida. The complaint was not upheld against the claimant. The respondent had a duty to investigate and the investigation did not objectively or subjectively constitute harassment related to race.

The claimant did protected acts including making allegations of race discrimination and bringing tribunal proceedings. However, the tribunal found the claimant was not subjected to the alleged detriments (exclusion from the dermatology department, failure to provide a return date, permanent redeployment, advertising of her role). The claimant's role was not advertised; a different vacancy was advertised following another staff member's resignation.

The claimant booked a bank shift for 10 November 2021 but it was cancelled due to adequate staffing. The respondent paid the claimant a two-hour cancellation fee in line with their procedure. The tribunal found the claimant was not entitled to be paid for a shift she did not work and there was no unauthorised deduction from wages.