An NHS doctor has been awarded £85,000 in compensation after an employment tribunal ruled that he was unfairly dismissed by an NHS trust, raising fresh questions about how bank shifts are used across the health service.
Dr Faisal Qureshi, a doctor from Newcastle, began working in January 2021 for County Durham & Darlington NHS Foundation Trust through its staff bank system. Bank work is typically designed to offer flexible, ad hoc shifts rather than permanent employment. However, Dr Qureshi argued that his working pattern did not reflect casual work.
He said he was given regular, set shifts over an extended period, which effectively made him an employee rather than a temporary bank worker. Because of this status, he believed he should have been entitled to the same rights and protections as permanent NHS staff, including sick pay and employment security.
The dispute began when Dr Qureshi raised concerns about his employment status through a formal grievance. Following this, he was informed that he would no longer be offered fixed shifts and could only apply for shifts as they became available on the bank system. He argued this change amounted to unfair dismissal.
Initially, the trust challenged his claim. However, during the tribunal process, it later accepted that Dr Qureshi met the legal definition of an employee. The employment tribunal ruled in his favour and awarded him £85,000 in compensation.
Dr Qureshi said the case highlighted a broader issue within the NHS. He claimed that bank arrangements are sometimes used in ways that deny doctors their employment rights, even when their working patterns closely resemble those of permanent staff.
According to him, this practice leaves doctors without basic protections, despite carrying out regular clinical duties. He described the situation as unfair and suggested similar arrangements may exist in trusts across the country.
The trust said it accepted the tribunal’s decision and confirmed it would review the findings to determine whether any further action was required. It did not comment on whether it planned to reassess the employment status of other doctors working through its bank system.
The case also drew attention to tensions between Dr Qureshi and the British Medical Association. He said the union declined to represent him at the tribunal, citing a lack of sufficient chance of success. A solicitor acting for the union stated that the claim was not believed to have more than a 50% likelihood of success at the time.
Dr Qureshi said he felt let down by the union, arguing that it failed to protect his interests. He added that unions have a responsibility to challenge employment practices that undermine doctors’ rights.
The BMA responded by saying it follows a clear process when deciding which cases it can support. It added that it was pleased Dr Qureshi was able to progress his claim independently.
The ruling may have wider implications for NHS trusts that rely heavily on bank staff. Employment experts say the case could encourage other doctors to challenge their employment status if their working arrangements resemble permanent roles.
As pressures on the NHS workforce continue to grow, the decision is likely to fuel debate around fair treatment, job security, and the correct use of flexible staffing systems.
