BARTS HEALTH NHS Trust has apologised after an employment tribunal ruled that they must pay a senior manager who was unfairly sacked £19,751, according to the Health Service Journal.

The tribunal said Gifty Poku, who was the deputy head of corporate accounts had a “blemish-free” record. The judge also raised concerns about the policing of language.

Poku had complained that her colleagues kept breathing on her. She was also accused of “regularly and repeatedly” blowing air back at colleagues she felt had exhaled loudly near her.

Poku, who was eventually fired for alleged misconduct claimed that her colleagues made distracting noises near her desk.

On one occasion, Poku had got into an argument with an accountant who she said had made distracting noises.

Judge Stephen Knight said that Poku’s alleged misconduct acts were minor.

Knight added: “[The Trust] took no useful, meaningful, and concerted steps to improve the relationships between [Mrs Poku] and her colleagues between the time of the first ever complaints and the date of the her dismissal.”

It comes following recent employment tribunal news from Barts Health NHS Trust.

An employment tribunal also awarded Miss J Panahian-Jand £26,000 in compensation.

The pediatric nurse raised concerns about alleged racial discrimination. As a result, she was banned from booking shifts.

The nurse who worked at Whipps Cross Hospital in East London suggested that shifts and work tasks were divided along racial lines.

The tribunal decided that her complaint amounted to protected disclosure, and that she faced detrimental treatment after raising her concerns.

Samantha Moore, employment judge said: “We consider that by restricting her ability to book shifts on Acorn ward the Trust both subject the claimant to a detriment and… treated her less favourably than other bank staff by not making available to her offers of that work. But for the restriction she would have been offered work.

“In our judgment this is a classic case of an employer treating far too severely a person who had raised allegations because they had done so. This is contrary to the expressed aims of its own whistleblowing policy.”