A senior clinical perfusion scientist at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital has lost an employment tribunal bid after being dismissed over “crude and offensive” post-it notes. James Faulkner, who spent 14 years working at the Liverpool children’s hospital, was sacked in February following complaints about his behaviour towards younger female colleagues.
Notes described as insulting and overtly sexual
The case, first reported by the BBC, included evidence about a number of notes allegedly written by Mr Faulkner. Some were insulting, while others were described as overtly sexual. One read: “[Colleague's] face looks like a rabbit that has been run over.”
Alder Hey managers said the notes had a “profound impact” on staff and criticised Mr Faulkner for failing to show “ownership or accountability” for his behaviour. Alder Hey told the BBC it could not comment while legal proceedings were continuing.
Tribunal rejects interim relief application
The details emerged from an employment tribunal judgment after Mr Faulkner applied for interim relief while he pursues a wider legal claim against Alder Hey Children’s NHS Foundation Trust. Employment Judge Dawn Shotter rejected the application, saying she believed Mr Faulkner’s case had “little or no reasonable prospect of success” based on the evidence presented.
The tribunal heard that complaints had been made by more than 10 witnesses, with some female staff reportedly unwilling to attend an internal disciplinary hearing because they “felt intimidated” by Mr Faulkner. He faced three separate sexual harassment allegations relating to incidents reported between June 2024 and April 2025. While Mr Faulkner denied most of the allegations, he accepted making certain sexual comments.
Whistle-blower claim rejected
During the disciplinary process, he told managers that he believed he had been “in a safe space with people I thought were my friends”. He said: “I admit I left myself wide open for it, and I have no one to blame but myself in terms of this.” Mr Faulkner also apologised and acknowledged that allowing him back into the workplace would be “a gamble”, before promising to improve his behaviour.
However, he disputes that the allegations were the true reason for his dismissal. He claims he was instead targeted after raising concerns about neonatal patient safety as a whistle-blower. Mr Faulkner alleges that his dismissal was carried out under a pretext and was “orchestrated” by his line manager. The trust rejected that claim, arguing there was “not a shred of evidence” that the manager had influenced the decision to dismiss him.
Judge Shotter agreed with the trust's position, saying the evidence showed that “numerous employees raised serious complaints against the claimant over a period of time”.
