In NHS 24 v Pillar EAT/0051/16, the EAT held that the inclusion in an investigative report of details about previous conduct in respect of which no disciplinary action was taken did not render a misconduct dismissal unfair.
In Royal Surrey County NHS Foundation Trust v Drzymala, the Employment Appeal Tribunal considered the fairness of an employee's dismissal by her employer's decision not to renew her fixed-term contract, including the effect of the employer's compliance with the Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002.
In Day v Health Education England and others [2017] IRLR 623 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a trainee doctor was not prevented from bringing a whistleblowing claim against the third-party introducer by the fact that he was engaged as a worker by the hospital trust to which he was assigned. His claim could proceed if the introducer could be said to substantially determine the conditions under which he worked in accordance with s.43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Supreme Court has considered whether or not an employment tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a complaint by a doctor against the General Medical Council for discrimination.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that including details of previous non-disciplinary incidents in the investigation report did not make the dismissal unfair.
The Court of Appeal has held that, where the reason or principal reason for a dismissal is because the employee made a disclosure, the question of whether or not that disclosure is protected falls to be determined objectively by the tribunal, and not the employer.
The Court of Appeal has held that the employment tribunal incorrectly struck out the appellant's claim against Health Education England (HEE). The Court remitted the claim to a fresh tribunal to decide, as a preliminary issue, if the appellant was a worker in relation to HEE under the whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Court of Appeal has held that the employer was not required to match each category of gross misconduct to each allegation
and that how the conduct was eventually categorised was a matter for the decision-maker after all the evidence had been adduced.
In McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust [2016] IRLR 742 EAT, the EAT held that, in order for a claimant to be a "worker" within the meaning of the extended "whistleblower" definition in s.43K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, all that is required is that the end user substantially determined the terms under which the claimant carried out his or her work. It is not necessary to show that the end user determined those terms to any greater or lesser degree than the agency, of whom the claimant might also be an employee or worker.