Ms Elena Alegado v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust and 1 other — 2020

The claimant relied on payroll-related disclosures and health and safety disclosures about expired defibrillator pads. The tribunal accepted that the payroll system was opaque and difficult to interrogate, and that concerns about the payroll system up to 21 September 2018 could amount to a qualifying disclosure. It also accepted that the crash trolley disclosure was a qualifying protected disclosure because it concerned potential health and safety issues.

The tribunal did not accept that the claimant's email and telephone conversation threatening tribunal action over unpaid wages were protected disclosures in the public interest. It found that this was focused on the claimant's own unpaid shift and did not engage the National Minimum Wage Act. The tribunal also found that the claimant had not made a claim or proposed action to enforce National Minimum Wage rights.

On detriment and causation, the tribunal rejected the claimant's case. It found that most alleged incidents were not detriments, did not happen as alleged, or arose from management concerns about communication, performance support, or the incident itself rather than from protected disclosures. One email about the crash trolley could amount to a detriment, but the tribunal found it was not sent because of the protected disclosure. The whistleblowing detriment claims and National Minimum Wage Act detriment claims were therefore dismissed.