Technologist was victimised in ‘naming and shaming’ by manager

A technologist has won his victimisation claim after being ‘named and shamed’ by his line manager without a proper investigation.

Jennifer Cafferky Solicitor in our employment team, reports on this recent case.

The case involved Mr N Chowdhury, who had been a senior critical care technologist at Barts Health NHS Trust since 2001. 

In 2021, Chowdhury was involved in a confrontation with a colleague, Mr Patelca, who complained that Chowdhury had not changed a membrane in a medical device.

They began to argue, and each accused the other of being confrontational. Patelca went off sick.

Chowdhury’s line manager, Mr R Aldridge, told staff in the department that Patelca was off sick because he felt stressed following the confrontation with Chowdhury.

In another incident in June 2021, Ms A Ross, a junior technologist, emailed Aldridge to say Chowdhury and Mr A Patel had challenged her about a bronchoscope, which had passed its use by date. Ross said: “I’ve had enough, I cannot work in this environment. I really felt like I was bullied by my colleagues today.” 

Aldridge emailed Patel and Chowdhury, saying: “I have had an email from [Ross] where she has expressed her upset at what she describes as being bullied at work over the weekend. Irrespective of what the issue under discussion was, all members of the team are required to treat each other with respect and dignity, and nobody should feel bullied by others.”

Chowdhury brought a claim of victimisation and the Employment Tribunal found in his favour.

The tribunal found that Aldridge had failed to apply “critical thinking”.

Judge Brannan said that “in both cases, Aldridge was blaming Chowdhury for the impact he has on other staff”. 

Referring to the first incident involving Patelca, Judge Brannan said: “Mr Aldridge had received complaints from both Chowdhury and Patelca. It seems entirely wrong for him to publicly name and shame Chowdhury in relation to this incident when there had been no investigation.

“We find he was venting his feelings because Chowdhury had made himself out to be the victim when it was Chowdhury’s alleged perpetrator who had ended up off sick. We find this to have been an act of victimisation.”

Referring to the second incident, Judge Brannan said: “We ask ourselves why Aldridge took forward Ross’s complaint without investigating it first. He simply accepted the word of Ross against Chowdhury and Patel.” 

For more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of employment law please contact Jennifer on 01228 516666 or send her an email.