Nurse who raised PPE concerns during pandemic wins whistleblowing detriment claim
A district nursing team leader who raised concerns about inadequate PPE and risk assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic has won her claim for detriment against Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board. The tribunal found she was isolated from her team and her role was changed after making protected disclosures.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was a Band 7 Team Leader for the Splott District Nursing Team.
- She made multiple protected disclosures about inadequate PPE and risk assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- From 26 May 2020, she was effectively removed from her team leadership role and isolated from her team.
- A disciplinary process was instigated following a patient death on 4 April 2020.
- The claimant resigned on 23 July 2021, citing the disciplinary process as the final straw.
- The tribunal found that the claimant suffered detriment due to her protected disclosures and health and safety concerns, but the disciplinary process was not unfounded.
Timeline
-
Claimant returns to work after sickness
Claimant returns from two-week sickness absence; first lockdown announced. She begins raising concerns about PPE and guidance.
-
Patient visit and death
Claimant visits a patient who later dies on 7 April 2020. A Datix is completed, leading to a root cause analysis (RCA).
-
Claimant emails Director of Nursing
Claimant emails Kay Jeynes about inadequate PPE, including goggles not fit for purpose.
-
Claimant begins shielding
Claimant receives Welsh Government letter advising her to shield due to a pre-existing health condition. She works from home.
-
Claimant told to step back from team leadership
Carol Preece telephones claimant to say she should step down from managing the team due to deputies' concerns and claimant's health.
-
Claimant submits formal grievance
Claimant submits a grievance alleging detrimental treatment for raising health and safety concerns.
-
Disciplinary investigation notified
Claimant receives letter from Lynne Topham stating a formal disciplinary investigation will be undertaken into the patient incident.
-
Grievance outcome provided
Richard Desir provides grievance outcome, rejecting claimant's concerns. Claimant does not appeal.
-
Decision to proceed to disciplinary hearing
Andrew Jones writes to claimant confirming the allegations will be considered at a disciplinary hearing.
-
Claimant resigns
Claimant gives notice of resignation, stating the disciplinary hearing notification is the final straw.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures about PPE and risk assessments during the pandemic, and whether she was constructively unfairly dismissed or discriminated against due to her disability (shielding).
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claims for detriment on the grounds of protected disclosures and health and safety matters. However, her claims for disability discrimination and constructive unfair dismissal were dismissed.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant made multiple protected disclosures about inadequate PPE and risk assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- She was effectively removed from her team leadership role and isolated from her team from May 2020 onwards.
- The disciplinary process instigated after a patient death was not unfounded, so the constructive dismissal claim failed.
- The claimant's shielding status did not amount to discrimination arising from disability.
No compensation has been awarded at this stage; a remedy hearing will be listed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees who raise genuine health and safety concerns are protected from detriment – employers must not isolate or penalise them.
- Making protected disclosures does not give blanket immunity from disciplinary action if there is a genuine basis for it.
- Constructive dismissal claims require a fundamental breach of contract – a disciplinary process that is not unfounded may not qualify.
- Disability discrimination claims require a clear link between the employer's actions and the employee's disability – shielding alone may not be enough.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the protection available to employees who raise genuine concerns about workplace safety, especially during a public health crisis. The claimant, a district nursing team leader with 16 years' service, repeatedly flagged inadequate PPE and risk assessments as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded. Instead of addressing her concerns, the health board effectively removed her from her leadership role and isolated her from her team. The tribunal found that this treatment was directly linked to her protected disclosures, not to any performance or conduct issues.
What the losing side could have done differently
The health board could have avoided liability by taking the claimant's concerns seriously and investigating them properly. Instead, they sidelined her and initiated a disciplinary process that, while not unfounded, was seen as part of a pattern of detrimental treatment. The tribunal noted that the board's actions – telling her to step back, instructing colleagues not to communicate with her – were clearly connected to her whistleblowing. A more transparent and supportive approach would have protected both the claimant and the board.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that whistleblowing protections apply even in high-pressure environments like the NHS. Employees who speak up about safety risks should not fear retaliation. However, it also shows that not every claim will succeed – the constructive dismissal and disability discrimination claims failed because the disciplinary process was justified and the link to her shielding was not proven. For employees considering similar claims, the key is to show a clear causal link between the protected disclosure and the detriment suffered.
Similar cases
Personal assistant who refused to attend work during lockdown wins constructive dismissal claim
A personal assistant with 11 years' service was constructively dismissed after raising health and safety concerns about attending work during the November 2020 lockdown. The tribunal awarded her over £115,000 in total.
Before and after school club leader loses Covid-19 safety dismissal claim
A before and after school club leader who refused to attend work during the pandemic claiming serious and imminent danger has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found her belief was not reasonable given the school's risk assessments.
Live-in carer wins whistleblowing detriment claim but loses constructive dismissal case
A live-in carer with 32 years' experience won a whistleblowing detriment claim after raising safety concerns, but her constructive dismissal claim failed. She was awarded £1,775.
Gas engineer's constructive dismissal claim fails; ordered to repay sick pay
A gas engineer who resigned while being investigated for working for another employer while off sick has lost his constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal also ordered him to repay £2,837.10 in sick pay.