Mr P Sridhar v Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust: 2301132/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 October 2023 |
| Date | 11 October 2023 |
| Citation | 2301132/2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 27 October 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Race Discrimination |
Case No: 2301132/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr P Sridhar
Respondent: Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Heard at: London South
On: 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 July 2023 and 9 August 2023 and 9 October 2023 in
chambers.
Before:
Employment Judge Heath
Mr S Townsend
Mr A Fairbank
Representation
Claimant: Mr A Adamou (Counsel)
Respondent: Mr R Moretto (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The claimant’s claims of detriment for making protected disclosures and of
victimisation are not well founded and are dismissed.
REASONS
Introduction
1. The claimant is a general surgeon with a special interest in vascular,
wound care and surgical dermatology, who was employed by the
respondent trust as an Associate Specialist doctor. This is the
determination of the claimant’s claims of whistleblowing detriment, and
victimisation for having done protected acts. There is a substantial
background, with this being one of five claims the claimant has presented
to the tribunal. We will refer on occasion to pages in the bundle as follows
[428] for page 428.
Case No: 2301132/2021
2
Protected disclosures
2. The claimant says that he has made three protected disclosures:
a. In an email on 17 July 2018 that the respondent had breached the
Public Sector Equality Duty by repeatedly failing to take reasonable
steps to eliminate discrimination - protected disclosure 1 (“PD1”)
[428];
b. In an letter on 10 September 2019 that the respondent had failed,
was failing or likely to fail to comply with statutory obligations on the
trust to have in place fit and proper persons, as defined in
legislation, on the board of directors. He says the Board included
the Head of People who had victimised the claimant, and had failed
properly to address his concerns (“PD2”) [442];
c. In an email on 10 June 2020 that, in breach of statutory obligations
to appoint fit and proper persons to carry out regulated activity, and
in breach of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA”), the respondent appointed
a locum consultant surgeon from the EU who was less qualified and
experienced than the claimant. He says that respondent inserted an
unnecessary condition to the appointment, and restricted it to
internal candidates [485].
3. The tribunal will have to decide whether these disclosures satisfy the
definition within section 43B(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 ("ERA").
Whistleblowing detriments
4. For his whistleblowing claim, the claimant says he was subjected to
various detriments because he made those disclosures;
a. The respondent failed to consider the claimant for a locum
consultant surgeon role;
b. The respondent constituted an improper and/or irregular interview
panel when it appointed to the role of Acting Deputy Medical
Director;
c. The respondent failed to offer the claimant the role of Acting Deputy
Medical Director;
d. The respondent required the claimant to enter into and sign an
agreement not to raise pre-existing and previous issues in order to
retain his employment.
5. The respondent denies that the claimant was subjected to detriments and
denies that what they did was because of protected disclosures. In short, it
says that:
Case No: 2301132/2021
3
a. The claimant did not apply for the locum role, which was in an area
outside of his expertise and experience;
b. The panel was properly constituted;
c. The claimant had no relevant experience of hospital management
to bring to a senior management role, and he performed
significantly worse than the other applicants at interview;
d. It proposed, at the conclusion of an independent investigation into
the claimant’s grievances, an agreement that the claimant would
not repeatedly bring complaints about matters the trust had already
dealt with, and/or which were to be determined by the employment
tribunal. The trust says that this was not a condition of the claimant
retaining his employment, but an honest and reasonable proposal,
which the claimant was free to engage with and suggest his own
terms, designed to allow the parties to work together in
circumstances where the claimant was raising complaints to the
most senior people in the trust, at the height of its response to the
pandemic, which were historic and repetitive, and were due for
determination in a tribunal listed for December 2021.
Victimisation - protected acts
6. It is not disputed that the claimant did 3 protected acts:
a. The 17 July 2018 communication also relied on as PD1. This will
also be termed “PA1”; [428]
b. Presented a complaint to the employment tribunal on 21 November
2018 under claim number 2304144/2018 (“PA2”);
c. The 10 June 2020 communication also relied on as PD3. We will
also term this “PA3” [485].
Victimisation detriments
7. In terms of victimisation detriments, the claimant relies on the following as
detriments the respondent subjected him to because of the protected acts:
a. Failing to follow a fair procedure (the failures are fully particularised
in the List of Issues) in dealing with an investigation into the
claimant’s complaints;
b. Telling the claimant that failing to enter into an agreement not to
raise further complaints would lead to an irretrievable breakdown in
trust and confidence and the potential termination of his
employment;
c. Asking the claimant not to raise new complaints subject to the
impending tribunal hearing.
To continue reading
Request your trial