In Kumar v The Care Quality Commission an employment tribunal has awarded Mr Kumar £23,000 in injury to feelings after he was disengaged by the Care Quality Commission (‘the CQC’).
In his latest article, Chris Dobbs outlines how the case unfolded at tribunal and looks at what the ruling means for employers.
When raised concerns constitute a ‘protected disclosure’
Mr Kumar, who is a doctor in the NHS, was seconded to the CQC to carry out inspections in hospital.
He raised a number of concerns about patient safety, inadequate inspections and bullying by CQC colleagues.
The employment tribunal held that these concerns, raised in several emails over a period of time, were protected disclosures as defined in the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Mr Kumar had a reasonable belief that the information he disclosed in the emails tended to show that the health and safety of individuals had been endangered and that a legal obligation was not being complied with by the CQC.
Mr Kumar’s removal from the CQC
As a result of his disclosures, Mr Kumar was removed from the list of inspectors used by the CQC in January 2019.
He argued that this resulted in causing him distress and a damage to his reputation. The CQC attempted to defend their action by saying his removal had been as a result of him using his position as an inspector to “intimidate colleagues”.
What did the employment tribunal find?
However, the employment tribunal decided this was not the case and that the disengagement of Mr Kumar was clearly a detriment to him as a result of him making the protected disclosures.
They therefore awarded him the injury to feelings amount to compensate him for the distress and damage to his reputation.
A specialist employment solicitors view
Chris Dobbs says: “There has been a lot of commentary recently that the whistleblowing legislation is not sufficiently robust enough to protect many genuine whistleblowers. This case will therefore be of some comfort to those people.”
What does this case mean for employers?
Chris Dobbs continues “For employers, it is a warning that causing a detriment as a result of protected disclosures can prove to be expensive.
Having read the case report, it is clear that the individuals at the CQC were, for the most part, trying to do the right thing (there had been a complaint about Mr Kumar by another colleague).
However, in removing Mr Kumar from the list of inspectors as a result of him disclosing, in his reasonable belief, wrongdoing, they had clearly breached the law.”
Comments