Case 2409403/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Temperton v Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409403/2022
- Decision date
- 8 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms F Crane, Dr B Tirhol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Temperton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that on 14 October 2022 the claimant told Nurse Gogoma that he disagreed with a patient's seclusion because it was said to be due to staff shortages and was a breach of the Code of Practice. It found this was a protected disclosure. It did not find that all alleged disclosures or detriments succeeded, but it found that the cancellation of the claimant's booked and future shifts on 21 October 2022 was done by reason of that protected disclosure.
The tribunal dismissed the protected disclosure detriment allegation based on the claimant being sent from Priestners Ward to Golborne Ward on 16 October 2022, and the interview allegation was withdrawn. On the disability claim, the respondent had conceded disability and the tribunal found it was under a duty to make reasonable adjustments, but held that sending the claimant home and paying him avoided the relevant disadvantage, so the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim was dismissed.
A later remedy judgment awarded the claimant loss of earnings, injury to feelings and interest for the successful protected disclosure detriment claim. The tribunal declined to make an uplift under s.207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment: the tribunal found that the claimant made a protected disclosure to Barbara Gogoma on 14 October 2022 and that his booked and future shifts were cancelled on 21 October 2022 by reason of that disclosure. | Upheld | — | £13,883 |
| Whistleblowing | Remaining protected disclosure detriment claims were dismissed, including the amended allegation about being sent away from Priestners Ward and told to go to Golborne Ward on 16 October 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant withdrew the protected disclosure detriment allegation concerning the respondent's failure to conduct an interview on 16 November 2022; it was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim concerning the 16 October 2022 Golborne Ward incident was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed on 28 February 2023. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £13,883
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,456
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
19 references- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43C Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43F Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.48(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Nicol v World Travel and Tourism Council & ors [2024] EAT 42
- Ibekwe v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2014] ICR 806
- s.20 Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 8 Equality Act 2010
- Ishola v Transport for London [2020] EWCA Civ 112
- Romec v Rudham [2007] All ER (D) 206
- Cumbria Probation Board v Collingwood [2008] All ER (D) 04
- Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust v Foster UKEAT/0552/10
- Southampton City College v Randall [2006] IRLR 18
- Garrett v Lidl Ltd [2010] All ER (D) 07
- Vento bands
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice 1
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.
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.