Dr G Ijomah v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust: 2601147/ 2017
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 May 2022 |
| Date | 13 May 2022 |
| Published date | 10 June 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 2601147/ 2017 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
CASE NO: 2601147/2017
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL S
Claimant: Dr G Ijomah
Respondent: Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
Heard at: Nottingham
On: 14th March to 1st April 2022
Ex tempore Judgment delivered to the parties on 14th April 2022
Before: Employment Judge R Broughton
Members: Mr C Pittman
Mr J D Hill
Representation
Claimant: Mr Awodele - Counsel
Respondent: Ms Barney - Counsel
JUDGMENT
1. The claims of detriment pursuant to section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 have
been presented out of time. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with those claims
and they are accordingly dismissed.
2. The claim of automatic unfair dismissal pursuant to section 103A Employment Rights
Act 1996 is not well founded and is dismissed.
3. The claim of ‘ordinary’ unfair dismissal brought pursuant to section 94 and 98 ERA is
well founded and succeeds. The Claimant is entitled to be compensated for the period
of 3 months which is the period it would have taken the Respondent to carry out a
disciplinary process in accordance with the respondent’s contractual disciplinary
policy. Further compensation is subject to the following deductions;
• A Polkey deduction of 50%
• A deduction to both the basic award and compensatory award of 20%.
4. The Claimant requests reinstatement.
5. A remedy hearing will be listed to determine the application for reinstatement or
otherwise to determine what compensation is to be awarded.
CASE NO: 2601147/2017
2
REASONS
The Issues
1. The issues in this case were agreed at the outset and were set out by the parties in an
agreed list of issues. The parties adopted the same numbering of the disclosures and
detriments as were identified prior to the dismissal and withdrawal of a number of those
disclosures and detriments. The Tribunal have adopted the same numbering in this
judgment which although it means that the disclosures and detriments do not run in
strict numerical order they can more easily be cross referenced to the list of issues and
other documents produced during the course of the case management process.
2. Mr Awodele confirmed that in respect of alleged protected disclosure PD6, the Claimant
relies upon section 43B (1)(a) and section 43B(1)(d) ERA only although there was
some confusion as a result of the inclusion of the words legal obligation, Mr Awodele
confirmed that the Claimant does not seek to rely on section 43B(1)(b) ERA and the
criminal offence does not relate to The High Security Psychiatric Services
Arrangements for Safety and Security at Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton Hospitals
Directions 2011 but to fraud and theft only. The agreed issues are as follows:
Ordinary Unfair Dismissal
1. Was the Claimant dismissed by the Respondent?
2. Did the Respondent have a potentially fair reason for dismissal of the Claimant?
3. What was the reason for dismissal?
4. Was the reason for dismissal one falling within Section 98 (1)(b) of the Employment
Rights Act 1996?
5. Was dismissal of the Claimant fair having regard to the practice within Section 98 (4)
of the Employment Rights Act 1996?
Public Interest Disclosures
6. Did the Claimant make one or more protected disclosures set out below and detailed
in the Claimant’s further particulars at pages 158 - 173 and the clarification
information provided by the Claimant for the preliminary hearing on 14 – 16
December 2020 at pages 243 - 253:
6.1. PD2 (page 490 - 492) Letter to Dr Mike Harris 29 November 2011 disclosing
concerns regarding staff and patient safety. In particular that a risk assessment and
plans should have been put in place to protect staff and patient health and safety at
work concerning boundaries. To be read alongside the Clarification Information for
Preliminary Hearing on 14 December 2020.
6.2. PD4 (page 493) Verbally to Dr John Wallace during a job planning meeting on 02
June 2012 disclosing concerns regarding staff and patient safety (evidenced in the
notes of the meeting). In particular that a risk assessment and plans should have been
put in place to protect staff health and safety at work concerning boundaries. To be
read alongside the Clarification Information for Preliminary Hearing on 14
CASE NO: 2601147/2017
3
December 2020.
6.3. PD5 (page 494 - 496) 245852803 4 Letter to Dr John Wallace 20 December 2012
disclosing concerns regarding staff and patient safety. In particular that a risk
assessment and plans should have been put in place to protect staff health and safety
at work concerning boundaries. To be read alongside the Clarification Information
for Preliminary Hearing on 14 December 2020.
6.4. PD6 (Page 497 - 498) Report to Lee Brammer dated 19 February 2013 disclosing
concerns regarding staff and patient safety. In particular that a risk assessment and
plans should have been put in place to protect staff and patients' health and safety and
property at work concerning boundaries. To be read alongside the Clarification
Information for Preliminary Hearing on 14 December 2020.
The Claimant relies upon section 43B (1)(a) and section 43B(1)(d) ERA only . The
criminal offence relates to fraud and theft only.
6.5. PD9 (page 499 - 503) Report to Dr John Wallace dated 05 July 2013 disclosing
concerns regarding staff and patient safety. In particular that a risk assessment and
plans should have been put in place to protect staff and patients' health and safety at
work concerning boundaries. 245852803 6 In respect of section 43B (1) (a) the legal
obligation failing to be complied with by the Respondent is the failure to adopt and put
in place specifically “The High Security Psychiatric Services Arrangements for Safety
and Security at Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton Hospitals Directions 2011”. To be
read alongside the Clarification Information for Preliminary Hearing on 14
December 2020.
6.6. PD13 (pages –504 - 506) Letter to Peter Parsons dated 05 December 2013
disclosing concerns regarding staff and patient safety. In particular that a risk
assessment should have been put in place to protect the health and safety of staff and
patients in relation to boundaries. To be read alongside the Clarification Information
for Preliminary Hearing on 14 December 2020.
6.7. PD15 (page 507 - 543) Letter to Sharon Rosenfield dated 23 April 2014 disclosing
concerns regarding staff and patient safety. In particular that a risk assessment and
plans should have been put in place to protect staff health and safety at work
concerning boundaries and to prevent future breaches. To be read alongside the
Clarification Information for Preliminary Hearing on 14 December 2020.
6.8. PD19 (page 544 - 557) Letter of grievance to Ruth Hawkins dated 26 October 2016
disclosing concerns regarding staff and patient safety. In particular that a risk
assessment should have been put in place to protect the Claimant's health and safety
at work. To be read alongside the Clarification Information for Preliminary
Hearing on 14 December 2020.
Detriments .
Did the Respondent subject the Claimant to any of the detriments set out below and
detailed in the Claimant’s further particulars at pages 174 – 18 and 264 - 273?
7.1. Detriment 1 Removal of the medical psychotherapy part of the Claimant's position
in September 2012 to 2014 by Dr Mike Harris, Dr John Wallace and Dr Gopi Krishner.
The Claimant asserts that this detriment started close to the time of raising protected
disclosures and that conflicting reasons were given for trying to justify the change.
To continue reading
Request your trial