M Chapman and Others

Case Summary

Mr Dimmock claimed unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and trade union detriment against NICE and two individuals. The tribunal found that while some complaints (protected disclosure and trade union detriment relating to a Band 7 role interview) were withdrawn, the complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal was well founded. The tribunal dismissed complaints of whistleblowing detriment under s.47B ERA and trade union detriment under s.146(1)(b) TULRCA as not well founded. A remedy hearing was scheduled for 9 July 2026.

The tribunal found that the complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal was well founded, while dismissing the claims based on protected disclosure (whistleblowing) and trade union detriment as not well founded. The judgment indicates the dismissal was unfair under ordinary unfair dismissal principles, though the specific reasoning details are not fully provided in the extracted text.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether claimant made protected disclosure regarding bias in committee decision-making
• •Whether dismissal was for redundancy or in retaliation for protected disclosure
• •Whether claimant suffered detrimental treatment on trade union grounds
• •Whether claimant should have been offered alternative employment in redundancy process

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr P Dimmock Respondent: 1. Mark Chapman 2. Sarah Byron 3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Heard at: Manchester (in person) On: 18-27 March 2026 Before: Employment Judge Slater (sitting alone) Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr B Williams, counsel RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. The complaints of detrimental treatment contrary to s.47B(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) and s.146(1)(b) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) relating to the allegation that the third respondent failed to offer the claimant an interview for a Band 7 role for which the claimant says he met the minimum requirements are dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. 2. The remaining complaints of detrimental treatment contrary to s.47B(1) ERA are not well founded. 3. The remaining complaints of detrimental treatment contrary to s.146(1(b) TULRA are not well founded. 4. The complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to s.103A ERA is not well founded. 5. The complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to s.152(1)(a) TULRCA is not well founded. 6. The complaint of “ordinary” unfair dismissal is well founded. 7. There will be a remedy hearing to decide on remedy for unfair dismissal on 9 July 2026. 2 REASONS Claims and issues 1. The claimant claimed unfair dismissal contrary to s.103A ERA, unfair dismissal contrary to s.152(1)(a) TULRCA, “ordinary” unfair dismissal, detriment on the grounds that the claimant made a protected disclosure contrary to s.47B ERA and detriment on the trade union grounds set out in s.146(1)(b) TULRCA. The claimant had made an application by a letter dated 13 December 2024 to amend the claim to include “ordinary” unfair dismissal, which had been omitted from the claim form. This email, although apparently sent to the correct email addr…