Claimant v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found no protected disclosure at 27 April 2022 meeting, as claimant expressed only opinions without sufficient factual content required under s43B ERA 1996. Protected disclosure found in April 2023 Grievance (FOI data on recruitment statistics) but all claims struck out as out of time. Permanent withdrawal of firearms authorisation (17 November 2022, known December 2022) time-barred. Changes in work location and job role (May-July 2022) time-barred. Grievance process detriments (outcome 6 December 2023) also time-barred, even allowing for reasonable extension. Tribunal had no jurisdiction.
Claimant withdrew sex discrimination claim on 12 February 2025 (confirmed by tribunal judgment 13 February 2025) after two case management preliminary hearings and orders for Further and Better Particulars. Only whistleblowing claim proceeded to this preliminary hearing.
Facts
Claimant, a Police Constable and Authorised Firearms Officer since May 2021, made social media comment in March 2022 about perceived sex discrimination in Police Scotland recruitment/promotion. At 27 April 2022 meeting he expressed opinions that women were favoured. His firearms authorisation was temporarily then permanently (17 November 2022) withdrawn. He was moved to different roles/locations. He submitted a detailed grievance in April 2023 including FOI data on recruitment statistics. Grievance rejected December 2023, appeal rejected March 2024. He filed ET1 on 7 June 2024 claiming whistleblowing and sex discrimination (later withdrawn).
Decision
Tribunal struck out all claims as out of time. No protected disclosure made at April 2022 meeting (only opinions, not factual information). Protected disclosure found in April 2023 Grievance (FOI data showing possible breach of Equality Act 2010) but all subsequent detriment claims out of time. Permanent firearms withdrawal (Nov 2022), work location/role changes (May-July 2022), grievance delays and character attacks (Dec 2023) all time-barred even allowing for extensions. Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction. Claim dismissed.
Practical note
In whistleblowing claims, expressing opinions about discrimination—even passionately held—does not constitute a protected disclosure without sufficient factual content; tribunals will rigorously apply time limits to each separate detriment, and unrepresented claimants cannot rely on alleged union advice unless clearly evidenced and causally linked to claim timing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000794/2024
- Decision date
- 22 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Police Constable (Authorised Firearms Officer)
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No