Claimant v East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust

The tribunal found that the claimant's emails dated 18 January 2021 to Roger Watson did not amount to qualifying disclosures. They lacked sufficient factual content capable of tending to show one of the proscribed matters in s.43B(1). The claimant conceded the emails were vague and lacking detail. The matters raised related to the claimant's personal circumstances and could not be said to be in the public interest. The claimant also failed to provide any detail about concerns raised to Mr Sharma in November 2020.

Because the tribunal found the claimant did not make protected disclosures, his claim of automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA (dismissal for making a protected disclosure) necessarily failed.

The tribunal found the claimant was fairly dismissed by reason of capability due to ill health. He had been absent for circa two-and-a-half years, repeatedly certified as medically unfit. The Respondent obtained up-to-date medical opinion, held eight welfare meetings, ten OH referrals, funded CBT, placed him on redeployment register, offered return-to-work plans (28 Oct 2020, 2 and 10 March 2022), and gave two opportunities to sign fit before dismissal. The claimant was given right of appeal, accompanied at hearings. The tribunal was satisfied the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses and a fair procedure was followed.

The tribunal found the claimant did not establish he was disabled by reason of autism at the material time (diagnosis April 2024, after dismissal), and in any event the respondent had no knowledge of autism. Although the respondent conceded disability by reason of anxiety and depression, the tribunal found the alleged PCPs either did not amount to PCPs (one-off decisions) or did not put the claimant at substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled persons. Specifically: the decision not to allow the claimant's 17-year-old daughter to accompany him was a PCP but did not cause substantial disadvantage (he had Ms Ellse as companion); the lack of a second private room was a one-off situation; allowing a notetaker via Zoom was a PCP but caused no disadvantage; allowing Ms Wheldon to attend was a one-off decision due to another HR officer contracting covid.

The tribunal found the claimant received in excess of his contractual entitlement to sick pay. Under NHS standard terms, he was entitled to full pay for first six months, then half pay until November 2020. The respondent exercised discretion to extend full pay until June 2021, then half pay until February 2022. The claimant was certified as medically unfit by his GP from November 2019 to March 2022 via Med 3 certificates. It was not the respondent's decision to place him on sick leave; the claimant submitted Med 3s confirming unfitness. There was no unauthorised deduction.