A NURSE at a GP surgery in Harlow, who was sacked has won her case at an employment tribunal .

Nuffield House Surgery in The Stow has been ordered to pay nearly £30,000 to Sue Crabb after she revealed that important documents relating to vaccines and medications were out of date.

Here are the findings of the tribunal.

The tribunal heard that Sue Crabb (the claimant) started work there on July 1st, 2024.

Soon after Ms Crabb discovered that  the surgery was operating under expired Patient Group Directives (PGDs).

Her case is that PGDs are required to be authorised and up to date according to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.

She said that many of these PGDs had been expired for over a year, and some staff members had been

administering vaccines when they had not signed the PGDs from 2022, which had expired in 2023.

=====

The Claimant says she brought this to the attention of the practice manager, Ann Curnow, and two of the partners, Dr Leon Kartey and Dr Alex Phipps.

The two partners took the PGDs into a meeting with the rest of the partners and the management team for review. The Claimant says she was tasked by Dr Kartey to ensure the PGDs were up-to-date.

========

The Claimant says that from this point onward she was treated differently by the senior partner, Dr Felix Kehinde.

Her case is that, one week after she had raised the issues with the PGDs, Dr Kehinde said he was going to reduce her working hours to two or three days a week, which was less than she was contracted to do.

The Claimant says this was not implemented due to the intervention of Dr Kartey.

==============

On 30 October 2024, the Claimant says she unexpectedly called to a meeting with Ann Curnow and Dr Kehinde. At this meeting she was handed a letter stating that my role as an Enhanced Practice Nurse (which she says is not her role or job title) was not achieving what was intended within the PCN, and it informed that she was being given one week’s notice of termination of employment.

The Claimant says the PCN had no involvement with her role or pay, so the letter was not even accurate.

The Claimant’s case is that, when handing her this letter, Dr Kehinde laughed and said

“Leon cannot help you this time”.

============

The Respondents’ Case

The Respondent’s case is that the 2024/25 funding arrangement from the Primary Care Network (PCN) allows for the employment of one Enhanced Practice Nurse (EPN).

The Respondent says this was the Claimant’s role.

The Respondent further said that this was supported by the fact that the Claimant did not work Wednesdays which was how the role of the EPN worked.

In support of this the Respondent supplied 10 pages of largely redacted meeting notes. These meeting notes to refer “Asthma Diagnostic Hub – 2nd wave” in meetings on 17 April 2024 ,15 May 2024, 26 June 2024, and 25 September 2024. A further mention of “Asthma Diagnostic Hub” is made in a meeting of 26 February 2025, but this post-dates the Claimant’s dismissal.

There is also a reference a post of “Enhanced nurse” from a meeting on 22 January 2025, but again this post-dates the Claimant’s dismissal.

The Respondent further said that the surgery the Claimant was employed for four days out of five each week (Nuffield House Surgery) was planned to be the host for an asthma diagnostic clinic.

For this clinic to operate it was essential that the EPN had a specific qualification, called the ARTP

qualification. The Respondent’s case is that the Claimant did not have this qualification and it would have taken her 18 months to obtain it and this is not a timeframe that could be accommodated.

Respondent says the Claimant was dismissed because she did not have the required qualification. The Respondent says further that it was confirmed to the Claimant in the dismissal meeting that her dismissal was not due to her work. The Respondent denied that Dr Kehinde said “Leon cannot help you this time”.

The Claimant’s reply to the Respondent was that she was employed as an Advanced Clinical practitioner and had never been employed as a practice. nurse. The Claimant said that she did work Wednesdays.

Deliberation

It is not the role of an employment Judge hearing application for Interim Relief to make findings of fact.

The Tribunal is reliant on the parties to set out the material facts for each side highlighting their strongest points.

There has not been any oral evidence.

The Tribunal has considered whether there is a “pretty good chance” that the Tribunal at the final hearing will find five things:
(1) that the Claimant had made a disclosure to her employer;
(2) that she believed that that disclosure tended to show one or more of
the things itemised at (a – f) under s.438(1);
(3) that she believed that the disclosure was made in the public interest
(4) that those beliefs were reasonable; and
(5) that the disclosure was the principal reason for her dismissal.

The Respondent accepts that the Claimant raised issues regarding the PGDs and the Respondent concedes that this was a disclosure of information.

The Respondent also concedes that the disclosures of information made by the Claimant show or tended to show one or more of the things itemised at (a – f) under s.438(1); in particular she relies on (b)
and (d). The Respondent further concedes that the disclosures were in the
public interest.

Following those concessions by the Respondent, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Claimant would have a pretty good chance of succeeding at a final hearing on points (1), (2) and (3).

Even if the Respondent had not made this concession, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Claimant would still have a pretty good chance of succeeding in persuading that he had made a disclosure to her employer.

The Claimant’s case that PGDs are a legal requirement is a convincing one and the Tribunal is satisfied she would have a pretty good chance of persuading a Tribunal at the final hearing that her disclosure was that the Respondent was in breach of a legal obligation and that health and safety of others was being endangered.

The Tribunal is further satisfied that she would have a pretty good chance of persuading the Tribunal at the final hearing that this was in the public interest.

The Respondent disputes that the Claimant held a reasonable belief that her disclosure was in the public interest.

The Respondent’s cases this is because of the manner in which the Claimant made the disclosures. It is not clear what the Respondent means by this.

The Tribunal finds the argument unconvincing. A disclosure regarding a medical practice operating under
expired legal documentation is likely to be in the public interest, and the Tribunal finds that there is a pretty good chance that the Claimant would be successful in persuading the Tribunal at a final hearing that her belief that the disclosures in the public interest was a reasonable one.

The main question for the Tribunal is “does the Claimant have a pretty good chance of demonstrating to a Tribunal at the final hearing that the disclosure was the principal reason for her dismissal?”.

The Respondent says the Claimant was dismissed for not having the ARTP qualification that was required for her role as an asthma diagnostic nurse.

Respondent’s case that the Claimant was employed as an Enhanced Practice Nurse funded by the PCN also does not seem to be plausible.

The contract of employment which the Claimant supplied to the Tribunal states
“your job title is Advanced Clinical practitioner”.

The contract also confirms the Claimant’s contention that she did work Wednesdays, as the contract
states “You will be located at Nuffield House Surgery, Harlow, for 4 days a week and Sydenham House Surgery for 1 day a week”.

Given that the parties agree that the practices were not open at the weekend, the Claimant’s working five days must therefore be Monday to Friday inclusive.
This is at odds with the Respondent’s contention that the Claimant was an EPN who did not work Wednesdays.

It is therefore unlikely that a Tribunal at the final hearing would conclude that the Claimant was employed as an EPN, nor that having the ARTP qualification was a condition of her employment.

There is no mention of such qualification being required in her contract. It is also unlikely that, if this
qualification was so vital to the Claimant’s role, the Claimant would be employed on 1 July 2024 without the qualification, and then not dismissed until 6 November 2024 for not having it.

The Respondent’s case on this point is implausible. Further, there is no mention of the lack of the ARTP
qualification being the reason for dismissal in the dismissal letter. It would be no hardship for the Respondent to have stated this was the reason.

Instead, the only reason given by the Respondent in the dismissal letter is the sentence “The role of the enhanced practice nurse funded by the PNC is not achieving what is intended”. This is a very ambiguous and somewhat cryptic sentence.

The Respondent says that this sentence should be interpreted as saying that the Claimant does not have the requisite qualification and is being dismissed for that reason.

The Tribunal, however, finds that is an unrealistic interpretation of that sentence.

The Tribunal also notes that Dr Kehinde attempted to reduce the Claimant’s working hours when her contract did not permit this, and this took place a week after the Claimant had made the protect disclosure.

The Respondent never challenged this. This case is not brought as a whistleblowing
detriment case, but this behaviour would suggest there was some ulterior motive towards the Claimant by Dr Kehinde following her protected disclosures.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondent has put forward no convincing reason for the Claimant’s dismissal, and the reason that has been put forward is not supported by the contemporaneous documents that are available to the Tribunal at this hearing.

The Tribunal is therefore satisfied, on the evidence before it today, that the Claimant would have a pretty good chance of convincing the Tribunal at a final hearing that the principal reason for her dismissal was her protected disclosure’

The full document can be found below

https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mrs-s-crabb-v-nuffield-house-surgery-6018307-slash-2024

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67ea955dba01abac8e9fe95c/Mrs_S_Crabb_v_Nuffield_House_Surgery_-6018307_2024-_Judgment.pdf