Claimant v Glasgow City Council

The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant's disability was the reason for Deborah Kelly allegedly pressurising her to work through breaks or late. The claimant's own evidence was that the reason she was asked to do additional visits was because she had the only car in the area, a reason entirely unrelated to her disability. There was no evidence of less favourable treatment compared to others, and no evidence from which the tribunal could infer disability discrimination.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of Pauline McGill and found that she did not make the alleged comment that the council would not have hired the claimant if they knew about her disabilities. The claimant's evidence was confused and contradictory about when and where the comment was allegedly made, changing her account from December 2023 to May 2023 during cross-examination.

There was no evidence that Yvonne Rice's failure to take the claimant's complaints forward was because of the claimant's disability or related to it. The claimant did not produce sufficient evidence to discharge the burden of proof. There was no evidence about how Rice dealt with other employees in similar circumstances, and nothing in the brief conversation from which disability discrimination could be inferred.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant was asked to take on additional visits, but found no evidence that this was related to her disability. The claimant's own evidence was that she was asked because she had the only car in the area, which has no connection to her disabilities. Even if the conduct was unwanted, it was not related to the protected characteristic of disability.

The tribunal found that Pauline McGill did not make the alleged comment about not hiring the claimant if they knew about her disabilities. The tribunal preferred McGill's denial and found the claimant's evidence on this point to be confused, contradictory, and unreliable. Without the comment having been made, there can be no harassment.

The tribunal found insufficient evidence that Yvonne Rice's conduct was related to the claimant's disability. The claimant's evidence about the conversation was very brief, and there was nothing from which the tribunal could infer any connection to her disabilities. The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof.

The tribunal found that the first two allegations of victimisation (concerning Deborah Kelly's conduct on 2 and 3 December 2023) failed because they occurred before the claimant did any protected act on 4 December 2023. Something that had not yet happened could not have influenced Kelly's conduct. In relation to the allegation about requiring the claimant to return to a service user's home, the tribunal found this was a lawful and reasonable management instruction that any manager would have given in the same circumstances.

The tribunal accepted Pauline McGill's explanation that she did not follow through on moving the claimant to opposite weeks because a new employee who had been recruited did not turn up to start the job, which would have left the service understaffed. There was no evidence that the reason for not moving the claimant was because she had done a protected act. McGill had agreed to the move to help resolve difficulties, so it made no sense to renege on it because of a protected act.

The tribunal found that Pauline McGill had offered the claimant one day's authorised paid leave for 11 December 2023 because she could not move the claimant at short notice, but expected her to attend work after that date. The suggestion that McGill was trying to entrap the claimant for disciplinary action was pure speculation bordering on fantasy with no evidential basis. A reasonable employee would not consider receiving a paid day off to be a detriment.

The tribunal found that Pauline McGill made a suggestion to the claimant that a move to a different geographical area might provide a fresh start and mean no interaction with Deborah Kelly. She was not trying to force a move but simply exploring options. A manager must be allowed to make such suggestions to resolve workplace difficulties, and a reasonable employee would not consider this to be a detriment.

The tribunal found that none of the allegations of discrimination or victimisation were well-founded, so the conduct relied upon could not amount to unlawful acts under the Equality Act. Further, the tribunal found there was no fundamental breach of contract. The actions by Pauline McGill were an attempt to keep the employment relationship intact and find a resolution to the claimant's issues, not conduct calculated or likely to destroy or seriously undermine the relationship.