Whistleblowing claim fails: job description review not linked to protected disclosures
An NHS advanced clinical practitioner who resigned after her job was regraded from Band 7 to Band 6 lost her constructive dismissal and whistleblowing claims. The tribunal found no causal link between her earlier disclosures and the banding process.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #constructive-dismissal
- #job-description-review
- #agenda-for-change
- #banding-dispute
- #trust-and-confidence
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Band 7 Ocular Plastic Advanced Clinical Practitioner from 6 April 2015 to 3 July 2020.
- The claimant made two public interest disclosures on 3 February and 24 March 2017 regarding a consultant's unprofessional behaviour.
- The respondent sought to revise the claimant's job description due to concerns about underutilisation and a disagreement over her assisting role.
- The revised job description was submitted for matching under Agenda for Change and was initially graded at Band 6, then confirmed at Band 6 after a second stage review.
- The claimant resigned on 18 March 2020 after accepting a Band 7 role at another trust, without exercising her right to appeal the banding outcome.
- The tribunal found no causal link between the whistleblowing and the job description process, and that the respondent acted with reasonable and proper cause.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
The claimant commenced her role as a Band 7 Oculoplastic Advanced Nurse Practitioner at the respondent.
-
First whistleblowing disclosure
The claimant raised concerns about Consultant X's unprofessional behaviour and clinical skills.
-
Second whistleblowing disclosure
The claimant further raised concerns about Consultant X.
-
Consultant X entered Behavioural Agreement
Following an investigation, Consultant X entered a Behavioural Agreement, which included an edict that she would not delegate patient referrals.
-
Informal meeting on job plan changes
The claimant met informally with Mr Gupta and Ann-Marie Chappell to discuss proposed changes to her job plan, but no agreement was reached.
-
First banding outcome: Band 6
The revised job description was initially matched at Band 6.
-
Second banding outcome: Band 6 confirmed
The second stage review confirmed the revised job description as Band 6.
-
Claimant resigned
The claimant resigned on notice, effective 3 July 2020, having accepted a Band 7 role at Chesterfield.
-
Grievance raised
The claimant submitted a grievance regarding the job description process and treatment.
-
Grievance outcome
Sally Robinson issued the grievance outcome, finding some shortcomings in process but not upholding the complaint.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed and whether she suffered detriment or was automatically unfairly dismissed because of whistleblowing.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all three claims: detrimental treatment on grounds of whistleblowing, automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, and constructive unfair dismissal.
Key reasons:
- The whistleblowing disclosures (in 2017) were not causally linked to the job description review and banding process (2019-2020). The trust had legitimate operational reasons for reviewing her role.
- The claimant resigned before exhausting the internal appeal process against the banding decision, which undermined her claim that the trust had destroyed trust and confidence.
- The trust's actions, including the banding outcome and grievance handling, were within the range of reasonable responses.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Whistleblowing claims require a clear causal link between the disclosure and the alleged detriment – a gap in time or intervening events can break that link.
- Resigning before exhausting internal appeal processes can weaken a constructive dismissal claim, as it may show the employer was given a fair chance to remedy the situation.
- Employers can legitimately review job descriptions and bandings for operational reasons, provided they follow proper process and do not act in retaliation.
- A grievance outcome that acknowledges some procedural shortcomings does not automatically mean the employer has breached trust and confidence.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the difficulty of proving that an employer's actions were motivated by whistleblowing, especially when there is a significant time gap between the disclosures and the alleged detrimental treatment. The claimant, a Band 7 Ocular Plastic Advanced Clinical Practitioner, raised concerns about a consultant's behaviour in early 2017. Two years later, the trust began a process to review her job description and banding, ultimately regrading her role to Band 6. She resigned and claimed constructive dismissal and whistleblowing detriment.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had made protected disclosures, but found no evidence that the trust's decision to review her role was linked to those disclosures. Instead, the trust had legitimate operational concerns about her underutilisation and a disagreement over her assisting role. The job description review was a standard process under Agenda for Change, and the banding outcome was confirmed after a second-stage review.
What the trust could have done differently
While the trust ultimately succeeded, the tribunal noted some shortcomings in the process, such as delays and communication issues. The claimant's grievance was upheld in part, acknowledging these flaws. However, the tribunal found that these did not amount to a breach of trust and confidence sufficient to justify resignation. The trust could have handled the process more smoothly, but its actions were not unreasonable.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees considering a constructive dismissal or whistleblowing claim, this case highlights the importance of timing and causation. A long gap between a disclosure and an alleged detriment can weaken the claim. It also shows that resigning without exhausting internal remedies, such as an appeal against a banding decision, can be fatal to a constructive dismissal case. Employers, meanwhile, can take comfort that legitimate operational decisions, properly carried out, will not automatically be seen as retaliation for whistleblowing.
Similar cases
Commission scheme change: constructive dismissal claim fails as non-contractual benefit
A Business Development Manager who resigned after his employer changed his commission scheme lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the commission was never contractual and the employer acted reasonably.
PWE sign-off delay: resignation over unauthorised absence meeting was not constructive dismissal
A graduate trainee accountant who resigned after being invited to a disciplinary meeting for unauthorised absence failed to prove constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the employer's conduct did not breach trust and confidence.
Staff nurse's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing fails
A tribunal has dismissed all claims brought by a Band 5 staff nurse against Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, including constructive dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and discrimination on grounds of race, age, and religion.
Constructive dismissal claim fails after informal complaints not pursued as grievances
An Operational Support Grade at HMP Garth who resigned after alleging bullying and poor complaint handling lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably and the complaints were not formal grievances.