Hospital chiefs at Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust are facing serious accusations of dishonesty and misleading the public amid an ongoing pay dispute involving phlebotomists. More than 20 staff members, currently two months into strike action, gathered outside a board meeting in Cheltenham to demand a re-evaluation of their roles from band two to band three.
Phlebotomists argue their duties require higher skills and responsibilities than currently recognized, warranting a band three classification. Band two staff earn £24,169 annually, while band three staff receive a minimum of £24,625, rising to £25,674 after two years of experience.
At the board meeting held at the Sanford Education Centre, phlebotomist Caroline Hayhurst accused senior management of breaching the NHS job evaluation scheme and local policies, claiming they blocked a proper job evaluation panel from upgrading their roles. Hayhurst stated, “We believe senior managers have misled the board, governors, and public about their actions.” She also revealed a whistleblowing complaint has been lodged regarding these violations.
READ MORE: David Attenborough Turns 99 Ahead of Urgent New Documentary on Ocean Conservation
READ MORE: Gloucester Dad Wins Life-Changing £850,000 Cash Prize Despite Narrowly Missing Out on Bigger Jackpot
Hayhurst emphasized that phlebotomists perform skilled, non-routine clinical duties aligning with band three criteria under the NHS job evaluation scheme. Despite providing extensive evidence, trust managers reportedly prevented their job evaluations from being matched to appropriate band three profiles.
In response, Claire Radley, Director for People and Organisational Development, rejected allegations of procedural breaches. She explained the trust adhered strictly to the NHS job evaluation handbook, which requires amended job descriptions or clear evidence of job changes to justify re-evaluation. According to Radley, the phlebotomists’ job description had not sufficiently changed, and a subsequent review confirmed the position remains appropriate for band two—a stance consistent with other NHS trusts locally and nationally.
Striking staff member Dawny Elliott highlighted a lack of direct engagement from senior management or HR, questioning why requested information was reportedly not received despite submissions made in November. Elliott criticized the trust’s communication transparency and accused them of dishonesty in their public statements.
Radley countered these claims, citing multiple meetings held with phlebotomists, union representatives, and HR over the dispute. She clarified that HR requested an amended job description signed by line managers—a procedural necessity—which phlebotomists failed to provide. Instead, supplemental information was submitted without the line manager’s endorsement, complicating the evaluation process.
Deborah Evans, trust board chairman, expressed a willingness to meet with the union to revisit the dispute and seek collaborative solutions.