Mrs J Stringfellow v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2022

Mrs J Stringfellow brought claims against Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust arising from her mental health-related absence, the handling of grievances about unsecured Fit Notes and a 30 March 2018 meeting, and the refusal of injury benefit allowance. The tribunal accepted that she was disabled for Equality Act purposes, but it dismissed every claim.

On the first grievance, the tribunal found that personal documents and Fit Notes had been left in the off-duty file and that this was an information-governance failure which the Trust later addressed by changing its filing process. However, it held that the grievance was not a protected disclosure because the complaint was about matters personal to the claimant and she could not reasonably have believed it was made in the public interest. The related whistleblowing detriment claim therefore failed.

On the 30 March 2018 return-to-work meeting, the tribunal found that Matron Wootton's conduct was inappropriate in following the claimant outside the portacabin, but it did not accept that she shouted at or bullied the claimant in the way alleged. It held that the second grievance was also not a protected disclosure because it concerned a workplace dispute personal to the claimant rather than a matter in the public interest. An internal appeal later upheld the grievance under the Dignity at Work policy, but the tribunal still found no protected disclosure and no detriment materially influenced by any disclosure. It also said the detriment complaint based on that incident was out of time.

The direct disability discrimination claim concerned delay in and refusal of injury benefit allowance. The tribunal found the delay was explained by the need to await occupational health evidence, including a psychological assessment, and that the assessment delay arose from an occupational health administrative failure rather than anything done by the Trust. It accepted the refusal of injury benefit allowance under section 22 of the NHS injury allowance policy because the claimant's sickness absence was found to arise from an employment dispute about the earlier data-breach and grievance issues, not because of disability.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal was not satisfied that any of the asserted practices amounted to PCPs. It rejected the contention that there was a proved practice of not implementing occupational health recommendations, not maintaining contact, withholding injury benefit or extended sick pay, delaying EMDR funding, delaying ill-health retirement paperwork, or failing to reinstate sick pay automatically. The unlawful deduction from wages and breach of contract claims also failed because injury benefit allowance was not a sum properly payable to the claimant under the contract or policy. No award was made.