Mr R A Stafford v York Teaching Hospital Facilities Management LLP Heard: Remotely by video — 2022

This was a remote preliminary hearing in a whistleblowing case brought by Mr R A Stafford, who had been employed by York Teaching Hospital Facilities Management LLP on a fixed-term contract from 29 September 2020 to 27 September 2021. The tribunal had no oral evidence, relied on an agreed chronology, and dealt with strike out and deposit issues under Rules 37 and 39. It also noted that the claimant's purported amended ET1 dated 12 January 2022 was not accepted as an amendment.

The tribunal considered the claimant's list of eight alleged protected disclosures in his 'Protected disclosures' document and the related attachments. Relying on section 43B ERA 1996, and the authorities in Cavendish Munro and Kilraine, it held that the alleged disclosures made in conversations in person or by video on 15 April 2021, 22 April 2021 and 6 May 2021 were only general allegations and did not contain information. It struck out those allegations, and it also struck out the allegations concerning Female D, Female C, Female E, a list of questions in a document described as 'witness statement interview questions', and the later document 'aystafford_23-07-2021_09-15-43.pdf'.

For the statements concerning Female A and Female B, the tribunal accepted that the comments could be regarded as information tending to show that their health and safety may have been endangered, identifying the risk as one to mental health arising from DB's conduct. It nevertheless found that any tribunal finding that these were protected disclosures, and that they were the reason or part of the reason the claimant's contract was not renewed, was unlikely. The tribunal took the same view of the allegation that DB drove around the NHS Trust's sites on 25 December 2020 without PPE or social distancing, and of the allegation that DB locked Penny Gilyard in her own office on 18 June 2021, which the tribunal said could potentially be a disclosure of a criminal offence. It therefore ordered a deposit of £100 in respect of each of those four allegations, totalling £400, as a condition of continuing to advance them.