In Day v Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust also known as Day v Health Education England1 (Day) the Court of Appeal (the CA) had the opportunity to consider whether the relationship between a junior doctor and Health Education England, the organisation responsible for organising training and posts for post-graduate trainee doctors, came within the protection from detriment for whistleblowers under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). From a socio-political perspective this case is of particular significance, set against a backdrop of the Francis Report into the catastrophic failings of the MidStaffordshire NHS Trust2 and the recognition in that report of the necessity of a cultural shift at organisational level to ensure that NHS workers feel able to raise concerns without fear of detriment. The potential compromising of whistleblowing protection in working relationships falling outside the primary working relationship if the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling had been upheld, led to Public Concern at Work joining the proceedings as an interested party.3 From a legal perspective, it is Lord Justice Elias’ reasoning on the statutory interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions which is noteworthy and likely to prove useful in the future development of the law. By allowing the appeal and holding that Dr Day’s relationship with HEE could come within the scope of the extended definition of worker in s43K(1)(a) of the Employment Rights Act (ERA), it is suggested that this judgment provides the right framework for future analysis of the ‘worker’ ‘employer’ relationship.

中文翻译：

---

初级医生的举报保护和并发“工人”身份：Day v Health Education England

在 Day v Lewisham 和 Greenwich NHS Trust 中，也称为 Day v Health Education England1（Day），上诉法院（CA）有机会考虑初级医生与英格兰健康教育组织之间的关系，该组织负责组织培训根据 1998 年《公共利益披露法》（PIDA），研究生实习医生的职位属于对举报人免受损害的保护。从社会政治的角度来看，这个案例具有特别重要的意义，背景是弗朗西斯报告对中斯塔福德郡 NHS 信托2的灾难性失败，以及该报告承认组织层面文化转变的必要性，以确保 NHS员工感到能够提出顾虑而不必担心受到损害。如果维持就业法庭和就业上诉法庭的裁决，则在主要工作关系之外的工作关系中可能会损害举报保护，导致工作中的公众关注作为利益相关方加入诉讼程序。 3 从法律角度来看，这是埃利亚斯大法官对相关立法条文的法定解释的推理值得注意，可能对未来法律的发展有用。通过允许上诉并认为戴博士与 HEE 的关系可能属于《就业权利法》（ERA）s43K(1)(a) 中对工人的扩展定义的范围，建议该判决提供正确的框架用于未来分析“工人”“雇主”关系。