Ms R Butterworth v Caroline Jacks and 2 others — 2026

Ms Butterworth alleged that she made a protected disclosure on 15 December 2022 by challenging Ms Katie Andrew's decision to allow a nurse who had tested positive for Covid to work in a patient-facing role. She alleged that the disclosure led Ms Caroline Jacks and Ms Andrew to prevent her from taking bank shifts in the Macclesfield area in June 2024 and that East Cheshire NHS Trust failed properly to resolve her grievance and address her public-interest-disclosure complaint.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Butterworth raised the Covid issue, believed she was acting in the public interest, and believed that the health and safety of individuals had been or was likely to be endangered. It nevertheless found that she had not proved that her belief that Ms Andrew acted contrary to the applicable guidance was reasonable. The staff guidance in force in December 2022 was not in evidence, and the tribunal could not determine whether the nurse's return to work contravened it. The primary disclosure therefore did not qualify for protection under s.43B ERA 1996.

The matters raised in Ms Butterworth's formal grievance of 3 June 2024 and with Lisa Nolan during the grievance process were reiterations of the December 2022 allegation, rather than separate qualifying disclosures. Because the underlying allegation had not been established as a qualifying disclosure, those later communications did not independently establish endangerment of health and safety or failure to comply with a legal obligation.

The tribunal found that the respondents' actions created a barrier to Ms Butterworth taking bank shifts in Macclesfield. It found that Ms Jacks told her not to book shifts, that Ms Andrew participated in that decision, and that the Trust's process for removing a bank worker was not followed. It also found that, although the grievance was formally upheld, the investigator's recommendations were not properly communicated or implemented, the claimant was not clearly told that she could resume Macclesfield shifts, and the subsequent appeal response did not resolve that issue. The tribunal stated that it would have upheld the pleaded detriments had the protected disclosures been established.

The tribunal also considered the evidence insufficient to establish on the balance of probabilities that the December 2022 incident was a material factor in the decisions concerning the claimant's shifts or grievance. As no qualifying protected disclosure was proved, the detriments could not support liability under s.47B ERA 1996. All claims were dismissed, and no monetary remedy was awarded or assessed.