Claimant v Greater Glasgow Health Board

The tribunal found that the claimant had been provided with substantial adjustments including consistent shift patterns, weekly support meetings, use of a radio as an auxiliary aid, and structured working arrangements. The respondent had not applied a PCP requiring employees to regulate emotional behaviour that placed the claimant at substantial disadvantage, and the proposed further adjustments would not have been reasonable or effective in removing any disadvantage.

The tribunal examined 13 separate alleged incidents of harassment. In each case, the tribunal found either that the conduct did not occur as alleged, or that it was not 'related to' the claimant's disability. Many incidents involved interpersonal conflicts unrelated to the claimant's autism, and there was no evidence that colleagues or managers were targeting him because of his disability.

The tribunal found that none of the alleged acts of unfavourable treatment were 'because of something arising in consequence of' the claimant's disability. The claimant's conduct during the incident on 27 September 2022 and other interactions was not shown to be neurodivergent behaviour arising from his autism. The disciplinary process was based on a genuine belief in misconduct, not on disability-related behaviour.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had done two protected acts: referencing the Equality Act in his grievance on 19 January 2022, and intimating ACAS early conciliation on 6 September 2023. However, there was no evidence that the grievance process delays, final written warning, appeal dismissal, or final dismissal were because of those protected acts. Decisions were taken independently on their merits.

The tribunal found the dismissal was for the potentially fair reason of conduct (the incident on 27 September 2022 with SCN Campbell). Applying the Burchell test, the respondent genuinely believed in the claimant's misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief based on evidence from four witnesses, and conducted a reasonable investigation. Dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses, particularly given the claimant's refusal to accept redeployment and the risk of further incidents.