Cases4104453/2023

Claimant v Scottish Water

25 November 2025Before Employment Judge D HoeyScotlandin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Victimisationfailed

The tribunal found that the alleged detriments were not established on the evidence. Ms Reid had not ignored, ostracised, or been curt with the claimant. While Ms Reid did call the claimant a liar during the 29 March meeting (which was a detriment), this was not because of the protected acts (the equal pay claim or the grievance), but because Ms Reid believed the claimant was untruthful about being excluded from work. The protected acts had no significant influence on the treatment.

Facts

The claimant, a Corporate Affairs Officer at Scottish Water, brought a victimisation claim alleging her line manager Ms Reid had ignored and ostracised her following an equal pay claim she raised in July 2022. The claimant had raised a grievance in March 2023 alleging bullying and victimisation. The tribunal heard evidence about workplace interactions between November 2022 and March 2023, including a heated discussion on 29 March 2023 where Ms Reid told the claimant she would be a liar if she maintained she was being excluded. The claimant had taken contemporaneous notes of various meetings which she said showed a pattern of exclusion, though these were not disclosed until the hearing.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claim. The judge found that the alleged detriments of ignoring, ostracising and being curt with the claimant were not established on the evidence. Ms Reid had maintained a professional working relationship throughout. While calling the claimant a liar was a detriment, this was not because of the protected acts (the equal pay claim or grievance) but because Ms Reid genuinely believed the claimant was being untruthful about being excluded. The protected acts had no significant influence on the treatment.

Practical note

Victimisation claims require proof that the protected act had a significant influence on the detrimental treatment; a tribunal will carefully scrutinise whether workplace tensions arose from the protected act itself or from other factors such as the manner of workplace interactions or the natural consequences of contentious proceedings.

Legal authorities cited

Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337Derbyshire v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council [2007] ICR 841Warburton v Chief Constable EAT 2020 376JJ Food Service Ltd v Mohamud EAT 0310/15Martin v Devonshires Solicitors [2011] ICR 352Nagarajan v London Region [2007] IRLR 54

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.27

Case details

Case number
4104453/2023
Decision date
25 November 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
public sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Corporate Affairs Officer

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor