Nurse Victimised for Whistleblowing Receives Substantial Compensation

Workplace whistleblowing is an act of good citizenship and the law frowns deeply on employers who fail to respond appropriately. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in awarding substantial compensation to an NHS nurse who complained of racism and bullying on the ward where she…

Mar 18, 2021

Adhy savala zbpgmge27p8 unsplash 1024x640

Workplace whistleblowing is an act of good citizenship and the law frowns deeply on employers who fail to respond appropriately. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in awarding substantial compensation to an NHS nurse who complained of racism and bullying on the ward where she worked.

The nurse complained to her manager that junior colleagues were being bullied and that staff on the ward had formed into cliques, divided by race. She also asserted that racial factors were affecting the allocation of work. She identified as white and did not raise those concerns in her private interest. She acted as a good citizen due to her fervent belief that race discrimination is wrong and that the hospital had a public equality duty to uphold.

Given the seriousness and sensitivity of the allegations, she was told not to discuss them on the open ward. After emotions ran high amongst staff, she was accused of disobeying that instruction and was restricted from working on the ward. As she was only qualified to practise on that ward, she was effectively restricted from working at the hospital altogether.

After she took action against the NHS trust that ran the hospital, the ET found that she had suffered victimisation and had been subjected to detrimental treatment for whistleblowing. Contrary to the aims of the trust’s own whistleblowing policy, it was a classic case of an employer treating a person who had raised allegations far too severely because they had done so.

There was no adequate evidence that she had disobeyed the instruction not to talk about her concerns on the ward. Following an incident in the hospital’s car park, in which a colleague blocked her path in a hostile manner, the trust failed to investigate the matter. Allegations that turmoil and disruption amongst staff had justified her restriction from the ward were exaggerated. There was also an inexcusable delay in informing her of the outcome of an internal investigation into her conduct.

The nurse was awarded £26,083 in compensation, including £15,000 for injury to her feelings. The ET also recommended that, within four weeks of its decision being circulated, the restriction on her working on the ward should be lifted.

Employer’s Hardline Anti-Corruption Policy Passes Legal Test

Many businesses, particularly those that deal with governmental authorities, sensibly have anti-corruption policies in place. One such policy came under close analysis in an employment case concerning a golfing trip provided to a public official. A senior employee of a software company was dismissed for gross misconduct after he authorised payment of the cost of the overseas trip taken by a senior official in a government agency. He subsequently launched Employment Tribunal (ET) proceedings,…

Is Dismissal a Reasonable Response? It All Depends on Context

When considering whether an employee’s misconduct justifies their dismissal, context is everything. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of a warehouse operative who responded angrily on social media after she was laid off at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The woman and some of her colleagues were laid off, without pay, shortly before the first lockdown came into force. They formed a closed Facebook Messenger group on which disparaging comments were made about the…

Acas Updates Code of Practice on Flexible Working

Following recent changes to the law and a consultation last year, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) has updated its statutory Code of Practice on requests for flexible working, replacing the previous version published in June 2014. From 6 April, employees have a right to request to work flexibly from the first day of their employment. Previously, employees only had this right once they had worked for their employer for at least 26 weeks. The updated Code encourages…