Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

NHSEmployment law

Case of the week: Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester

by Alan Strain 11 Jan 2011
by Alan Strain 11 Jan 2011

Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester

FACTS

Ms Fecitt, Ms Woodcock and Ms Hughes were employed by NHS Manchester as registered nurses at a walk-in health centre. In March 2008, they raised concerns about another nursing colleague, Mr Swift, who had boasted about having clinical experience and qualifications that he did not, in fact, possess.

The employer accepted that, in passing on these concerns, Ms Fecitt, Ms Woodcock and Ms Hughes were making a protected disclosure. Mr Swift subsequently apologised about exaggerating his qualifications and it was decided that no further action would be taken against him. This did not satisfy Ms Fecitt, Ms Woodcock and Ms Hughes, who continued to pursue the matter, with the result that staff relations at the walk-in centre deteriorated. The three of them were subjected to unpleasant behaviour by other staff. They raised grievances about their treatment. Mr Swift made allegations of bullying and harassment and Ms Fecitt made a formal complaint under the whistleblowing policy.

Ultimately, Ms Fecitt was removed from her managerial responsibilities and she and Ms Woodcock were redeployed away from the walk-in centre. Ms Hughes, who was a bank nurse, was simply not given further work by the employer.

Ms Fecitt, Ms Woodcock and Ms Hughes all brought employment tribunal proceedings alleging that they had been subject to a detriment as a result of their protected disclosure, contrary to the protection for whistleblowers in s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996.

DECISION

The employment tribunal decided that the claims should not succeed. Ms Fecitt, Ms Woodcock and Ms Hughes had suffered detriments in that they had been subjected to unpleasant behaviour by colleagues and also by virtue of the centre’s decision to redeploy Ms Fecitt and Ms Woodcock. However, the tribunal decided that these detriments were not “on the ground that” the claimants had made a protected disclosure. Mrs Nixon’s actions were the “only feasible way of resolving” the dysfunctional state of the walk-in centre.

The claimants appealed against the employment tribunal’s decision, arguing that the tribunal had taken the wrong approach to the question of causation. The tribunal appeared to have applied a test that required the making of the protected disclosure to be “the direct and proximate cause” of the detriment suffered by the claimants.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed that the tribunal had taken the wrong approach. Where an individual has made a protected disclosure and has subsequently suffered unwanted treatment amounting to a detriment, it is for the employer to prove that its actions (or any failure to act) was “in no sense whatsoever” on the ground of the protected disclosure. The disclosure must play no more than a trivial part in causing the detrimental treatment.

IMPLICATIONS

This decision brings the test for causation in whistleblowing claims in line with the test that applies in discrimination cases. It will now be harder for an employer to defend its position when an employee suffers detrimental treatment after making a protected disclosure.

As in this case, whistleblowing allegations can lead to a breakdown in workplace relationships but, following this decision, employers will have to be more careful than ever to ensure that any steps taken to resolve such discord do not amount to detrimental treatment of the whistleblower.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Alan Strain, employment partner








Practical guidance from XpertHR on whistleblowing:



  • Line manager briefing on whistleblowing This line manager briefing looks at the law and best practice on whistleblowing.
  • Whistleblowing policy Use this model policy to provide a route for any worker to raise qualifying disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
  • Whistleblowing: FAQs Get answers to frequently asked questions on whistleblowing in the XpertHR FAQs section.

Alan Strain

previous post
ISO Recognition for Denplan
next post
Case of the week: Rayner v Turning Point and others

You may also like

Public sector workers gain pay rises of up...

22 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

RCN warns Darlington NHS trust over single-sex spaces

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

NHS Scotland staff accept two-year 8.2% pay deal

16 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

Healthcare workers prioritise mental health support in new...

12 May 2025

Nurses threaten strikes if pay demands not met

12 May 2025

Jobs on the line across NHS trusts in...

9 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+