Mrs J Walker First v South Tees Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Second Respondent: Lauren Walker — 2019

The claimant was employed as a Patient Flow Coordinator by the first respondent NHS Trust and, after a 2018 reorganisation, the role was upgraded and included work at the Friarage Hospital and a planned care element involving holding the bleep. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had previously raised safety concerns about the role and that some of the October and January emails were protected disclosures, but it did not need to decide whether the December emails were qualifying disclosures because most of the detriment claims failed for other reasons.

On the whistleblowing claims under section 47B ERA 1996, the tribunal rejected the claimant's account on the key factual allegations. It found that Ms Urwin did not tell the claimant she would have to cover the Friarage, did not refuse to risk assess the role, did not try to bribe her, and did not tell her she would have to remain in the pilot scheme. Where Ms Urwin said the claimant would have to perform the full PFC role if she returned, or mentioned possible reductions in weekend work, the tribunal found those points were driven by the content of the role and the operational picture, not by the claimant's protected disclosures. The tribunal also found no deliberate delay in the claimant's return to work, and held that Ms Dubooni did not know about the protected disclosures when dealing with the return-to-work process.

The pregnancy discrimination claims under section 18 EqA 2010 mostly failed for overlapping reasons. The tribunal found that the requirement to do the planned care element of the role pre-dated the pregnancy, that Ms Urwin agreed to carry out a risk assessment and offer support while that was arranged, and that references to redeployment were made only in response to questions or as possible outcomes if OH advised it. It rejected the allegations of attempted bribery and other asserted unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy. The one claim upheld was allegation 18: on or around 16 September 2019, Ms Walker accessed the claimant's confidential patient database record. The tribunal held that this was unfavourable treatment and that it was because of the claimant's pregnancy, even though Ms Walker said she had been looking for the claimant's address and the tribunal found the precise motive uncertain.

The supplied reasons do not record any monetary remedy or award figure, so no total award is stated in the text provided.