MR P PRITCHARD v Cardiff And Vale University Health Board — 2017

The claimant was a senior perfusionist. The tribunal found that his email of 19 June 2015 about the second checklist and patient safety was a qualifying disclosure, but it did not find that the 7 August 2015 meeting was proved to be a qualifying disclosure. It also recorded that relationships between the claimant and some colleagues, particularly Mr Rodd and Mr Jones, were dysfunctional, but it did not accept that this explained the later decisions by the respondent.

After the 13 August 2015 incident in which the claimant admitted transposing tubing in the heart-lung machine setup and not correctly completing the checklist, Mr Coslett carried out a learning lessons investigation and then a disciplinary investigation. The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, that the evidence was sufficient to support that belief, and that the investigation and disciplinary route were reasonable in the circumstances. It found that the offer of trainee perfusionist work as an alternative to dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.

The tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed when he did not accept the alternative employment and wrote the 3 June 2016 letter, and that the reason for dismissal was his conduct, not the protected disclosure. It found no dismissal on 2 August 2016, holding that the move to an administrative role at the Wales Heart Research Institute was a temporary relocation for service reasons after difficulties on his return to work. The s.98 unfair dismissal claim, the s.103A whistleblowing dismissal claim, and the s.47B detriment claim were all dismissed, and no monetary award was made.