Mrs M Jivraj v Hounslow and Richmond Community Healthcare NHS Trust: 2305012/2022
JUDGMENT
The following matters pleaded by the claimant as qualifying protected disclosures are dismissed. They do not amount to qualifying disclosures :-[1]On 29 March 2021 the Claimant emailed Dr Su Roy, Dr Akhil Mayor, the whole pharmacy team and others following convo with Nikita Padda (Hub non-clinical lead) raising a concern about the layout of the Sequence & Clinic room as to how patients were placed, and the layout of the sharps disposal kit.[2]The Claimant sent an email 10th May 2021 to Sana Choudry (line manager) and others.[3]The Claimant’s complaint of 12 November 2021, by email to Rosalyn King, about Joanne Peh’s “constant attack against me for standing up for myself”, which is said to have been a complaint of victimisation for raising health and safety concerns.[4]The Claimant’s complaint of 12 November 2021, by email to Rosalyn King, that Joanne Peh had “taken decisions without first consulting the health care professionals providing the services to the patients. That can affect patient safety”.[5]On 19 November 2021 and on 07 December 2021, by email to Rosalyn King, attaching Exhibit S which showed preference being given to Poh Long for the Senior PCN Clinical Pharmacist vacancy, which the Claimant had not been given the opportunity to apply for.[6]On 29 November 2021, in an email to Roslyn King, copying-in Akhil Mayor and the Pharmacy Team asking: What the contingency plan was in respect Case Number: 2305012/2022 PHCM Order (NEW August 2020) 2 of 2 August 2020 of sickness absence of staff; stating that on 23 November 2021, Jack Bains could not give his full attention to mixing the appropriate number of vials so that there were several periods when vials were not ready and patients were left waiting; there were 2 significant errors, likely caused by vaccinator fatigue, which was unsafe for patients and staff; and conveying that staff felt forced and bullied to work on weekends, whereas their contracts allowed them flexibility.[7]On 29 November 2021, to Akhil Mayor and the Pharmacy Team conveying that the staff wished to be offered overtime or TOIL.[8]On 21 December 2021, by email to Rosalyn King and Akhil Mayor, complaining that the grievance outcome did not address the Claimant’s concerns fully; ongoing health and safety concerns at the Hub affecting patients; animosity faced for having raised concerns; and unfairly not taking C’s grievance seriously.[9]On 11 February 2022, at a meeting with Graham Rodber, Freedom to Speak Up Guardian, the Claimant raised concerns regarding a failure in addressing the concerns mentioned above. 19/9/23 Sent to the parties on: 20/10/23 ……………………………. For the Tribunal Office: ……...…………………….. Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.REASONS
There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because the claimant has not provided any reason why the interests of justice would require this . In summary:-[1]The claimant raises concerns about a previous preliminary hearing that are not matters that relate to the judgement .[2]The complaint seems to relate to the respondent’s compliance with case management orders that are .not matters that relate to the judgment.[3]It appears to be suggested that the claimant should have been advised to apply for an adjournment. The claimant had been put on notice pf the purpose of the hearing and further, the respondent withdrew its objection to the amendments and reduced the scope of the dispute on the protected disclosures. The hearing was therefore less complex than the claimant had been put on notice to expect.[4]The fact the claimant believes there are significant claims that need to be addressed is not a reason to reconsider the judgment. Employment Judge McLaren Date 08 November 2023