Mr P Dimmock v M Chapman and Others — 2026

Mr Dimmock worked for NICE from November 2013 and was a UNISON representative from 2016, later branch secretary. His final substantive role was a Band 8b HTA adviser working on MedTech Innovations Briefings. NICE accepted, and the claimant accepted in evidence, that withdrawal of funding for MIBS created a genuine redundancy situation affecting his role and two others. The tribunal found that the dismissal reason was redundancy.

The tribunal held that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure at the 10 December 2021 Medical Technologies Advisory Committee meeting. It found that his comment related to a concern about Una Adderley having a conflict of interest and being allowed to address the committee, and that he believed there had been some breach of process. However, it was not satisfied that he believed at the time that the information tended to show a failure to comply with a legal obligation, and the wording did not specifically allege a breach of conflict-of-interest procedures. The s.103A unfair dismissal complaint and remaining s.47B protected disclosure detriment complaints therefore failed; the Band 7 protected disclosure detriment allegation had been withdrawn.

The tribunal dismissed the trade union automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.152(1)(a) TULRCA because the sole or principal reason for dismissal was redundancy. It also dismissed the remaining s.146(1)(b) trade union detriment complaints. It found that the claimant was a trade union member and representative and that there had been a difficult relationship between UNISON and NICE, but the pleaded detriments either were not proved as alleged or did not satisfy the initial burden of showing that the relevant acts were for the sole or main purpose of preventing, deterring, or penalising trade union activity. The Band 7 trade union detriment allegation had been withdrawn.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal held that NICE acted outside the band of reasonable responses in not offering the claimant the Band 8b HTA adviser role in late March or early April 2023, after he was the only at-risk employee expressing interest and had been assessed by Anastasia Chalkidou as meeting required qualifications and skills or knowledge and generally meeting job-related experience while falling short in some areas. It found that any concerns about suitability could have been tested during a trial period, and that requiring a preferential interview instead did not correct the unreasonableness. The tribunal concluded that, had NICE acted within the band of reasonable responses, the claimant would have been offered the Band 8b post and dismissal would have been avoided.

The tribunal did not make any remedy award in this judgment. It directed that remedy for unfair dismissal would be decided at a remedy hearing on 9 July 2026.