Case 1405991/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr B Walker v North Bristol NHS Trust Heard by Cloud video — 2022

Case reference: 1405991/2020
Decision date: 13 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Reed Representation

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr B Walker

Respondent

North Bristol NHS Trust Heard by Cloud video

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Walker had been employed by North Bristol NHS Trust since January 2016 as a maintenance craftsperson. After complaints in May and June 2018 about comments said to concern same-sex relationships, mixed-race relationships and Muslims, he lodged a grievance on 1 August 2018. The Trust rejected that grievance in December 2018, later suspended him, investigated further complaints, issued a final written warning in October 2019, rejected his appeal in July 2020, and he resigned on 22 July 2020. This judgment was not a merits hearing; it was a strike-out and deposit application heard on 30 November 2021, with no live evidence.

The tribunal struck out the claims based on the 1 August 2018 grievance insofar as it was said to be a protected act and a protected disclosure. It held that the grievance did not amount to an allegation of Equality Act contravention, so the victimisation claim based on it could not proceed. It also held that the grievance was not a protected disclosure within ss.43A-43B Employment Rights Act 1996, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim based on whistleblowing was struck out. In the indirect discrimination case, it struck out the allegations relying on PCPs 2 and 3, concluding that they were in substance direct discrimination complaints recast as indirect discrimination.

The tribunal refused to strike out the remaining claims. It said Mr Walker's asserted beliefs, including conservative Christian sexual ethics and opposition to same-sex marriage, were at least capable of protection under s.10 Equality Act 2010, referring to Grainger v Nicholson and Forstater v CGD Europe. On that basis it allowed the harassment claim, the direct discrimination claim, the indirect discrimination claim based on PCP 1, the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, the constructive dismissal claim, and the victimisation claim based on the separate Scout Association proceedings to continue to a final hearing. No monetary award was made in this decision, and no deposit order was imposed.

Claims and outcomes

8 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Victimisation	The victimisation claim based on the claimant's grievance dated 1 August 2018 was struck out because the tribunal held that the grievance did not amount to a protected act under section 27 Equality Act 2010.	Struck out	—	—
Whistleblowing	The grievance dated 1 August 2018 was held not to be a protected disclosure under ss.43A-43B Employment Rights Act 1996, so the automatically unfair dismissal claim based on that allegation was struck out.	Struck out	—	—
Victimisation	The separate victimisation case based on the claimant's litigation against the Scout Association was not struck out; the tribunal accepted that bringing that claim was a protected act and left causation and merits for the final hearing.	Other	—	—
Harassment	The harassment claim was not struck out. The tribunal said it could not sensibly decide, without hearing evidence, whether the alleged treatment was related to the claimant's religious beliefs and whether the section 26 Equality Act 2010 test was met.	Other	Religion or belief	—
Religion or belief discrimination	The tribunal refused strike-out or deposit orders on the claimant's direct discrimination case and on the indirect discrimination allegation based on PCP 1, namely treating criticism of Islam, Muslim immigration, same-sex marriage, homosexual acts and multiculturalism as discriminatory comments and misconduct.

Legal tests applied

11 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.