Claimant v Aberdeen City Council

Tribunal found no evidence of direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment, or victimisation. Respondent accepted claimant was disabled due to autism. Claimant alleged mistreatment by Mr Wood, including comment at retirement party (tribunal found did not occur) and initiation of disciplinary process. Tribunal found no facts from which inference of discrimination could be drawn. Disciplinary process was justified and conducted properly, with autism taken into account as mitigation resulting in lowest level sanction.

Claimant sought adjustments for proper training, clear communications, and avoidance of disciplinary process. Tribunal found claimant had received proper training (paired with senior wardens for longer than non-disabled recruits), regular debriefs were held with managers who showed empathy and awareness of autism, and a disability passport was agreed in August 2024 confirming adjustments already made. Tribunal held it would be unreasonable to exempt claimant from disciplinary policy; reasonable adjustment was to take disability into account when deciding outcome, which respondent did.

Claimant alleged protected disclosures made on 18 March and 22 July 2024 in grievances. Tribunal found these were clearly personal grievances about perceived mistreatment by Mr Wood, not matters in the public interest. Claimant gave no evidence he believed disclosures were in public interest and tribunal found he could not reasonably have believed so. Failed Williams v Brown test for qualifying disclosure. No linkage established between grievances and any alleged detriments.

Claimant lacked qualifying service for ordinary unfair dismissal and claimed automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A. Claim failed because tribunal found no protected disclosures were made. Additionally, tribunal found no breach of contract by respondent going to heart of contract. Respondent entitled to investigate allegations and follow disciplinary policy. Principal reason for resignation was claimant's decision to attend college course, not any breach by respondent. Request for flexible working had not been finally determined at time of resignation; meeting was scheduled for following week. Refusal of special leave in interim was not breach of contract nor last straw.