The second day of the employment tribunal hearing brought by Dr Martyn Pitman, the whistleblower consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, against Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, was entirely devoted to a character assassination by the trust’s lawyers to attempt to prove he could not work with anyone. This is the key point of the trust’s grounds for sacking him.

Yesterday the doctor had issued a statement – which I was unable to report because of the tribunal’s remote access tech crash – explaining why he had brought the case and why he thought patient safety was at risk under new management at the Royal Hampshire Hospital’s midwifery service.

As the Press Association, who were at the court ,reported: “Mr Pitman said the merger of Royal Hampshire County Hospital with Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital NHS Trust in 2012 “proved challenging due to significant differences in the philosophy of care and management style”.

“I was justifiably reluctant to follow the low-risk, senior midwifery-led, pro-normalisation model of care championed by our new partners. I believe that, in the 21st century, maternity care should be patient-focused.

“Unfortunately this stance, somewhat professionally unpopular at the time, but now fully supported following recent enforced changes in UK maternity practice, made me vulnerable to managerial challenge.”

Effectively it meant more home than hospital births raising issues of patient safety. It was this change that led to a revolt by midwives who threatened a ” vote of no confidence” that enraged the managers and which Dr Pitman, who had worked in the hospital for over 20 years supported them.

It was this that led to the clash. As he said in his statement:

“Instead of working with me and my fellow consultants to address the concerns that had been raised, senior managerial colleagues realised the individual and organisational damage that our disclosures could cause.

“They chose instead to recruit the willing assistance of their senior trust managerial colleagues to subject me to a formal Managing High Professional Standards Investigations (MHPSI).

“As a direct consequence of exerting my professional responsibility in whistleblowing concerns I was subjected to brutal retaliatory victimisation.”

Today it emerged that the initial meeting between management and the three senior midwifery managers that led to the decision to launch an internal investigation into Dr Pitman’s conduct in backing the dispute was never minuted. The three had already accused him of bullying and one claimed she had to rush to the toilet to cry after a meeting with him.

This decision is remarkably similar to the action taken by the managers at the Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust – who set up an informal unminuted group – so they could pursue whistleblower cardiology consultant Usha Prasad and sack her for raising whistleblowing concerns and claims of racism and sexism.

Dr Pitman told the tribunal he was ” astonished ” there were no minutes of the meeting. ” This was the meeting that set in motion a process that led my eventual sacking and end of my career at the hospital.”

Day’s grilling by Mark Sutton, KC

His answer was part of a day’s grilling by Mark Sutton ,KC the former head of chambers and part time judge at Old Square Chambers, where he accused Dr Pitman, on behalf of the trust, of behaving in a rude and arrogant way, declining to meet people, neglecting patients, slamming a door at a meeting, causing one member of the senior midwifery managers, to hand in her resignation because of his bullying , planning revenge on the trust and raising issues that ” were not in the wider public interest” by bringing this case.

Dr Pitman refuted these allegations. He pointed out that the letter of resignation from the manager came at a time when he was not at the hospital so he could not have bullied her. The accusation of planning to take a holiday at Christmas when they needed a consultant and therefore neglecting patients was caused by the management not telling him they had changed the procedures for staff to book holidays.

He categorically denied planning revenge against the hospital management but told the tribunal that when he returned before he was dismissed he found the situation concerning the management of the midwifery service had not improved and was worse.

The hearing continues tomorrow.

The trust in a fresh statement said:

“The trust ensured that all issues raised by Mr Pitman were thoroughly and impartially investigated, including in some instances through external review. Every effort was made to repair his relationships with the maternity and clinical colleagues in question – efforts which were unfortunately unsuccessful.

“We are increasingly concerned that Mr Pitman’s representation of the reasons for his dismissal could discourage others from raising important issues.”

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.