Claimant v Glasgow Caledonian University

The tribunal found the dismissal was for some other substantial reason (irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence) and was fair. The claimant's inappropriate language in emails comparing the respondent to Nazis, calling managers 'sociopaths' and 'untalented scientists', and making unfounded allegations about a colleague's 'disappearance' demonstrated a breakdown of the relationship. The tribunal concluded the respondent acted reasonably, considered alternatives, and followed a fair procedure.

The tribunal found the claimant made protected disclosures on 13 June 2019, 11 June 2020, and 8 September 2020 concerning the White Armband Day event and alleged breaches of equality duties. However, the reason for dismissal was the irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence, not the protected disclosures. The senior decision-makers did not have the protected disclosures in their minds when deciding to dismiss; the concerns were about the claimant's inappropriate language and behaviours towards staff and students.

The claimant was disabled by reason of vertigo during the relevant period (17 January 2023 to 13 March 2023). The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed because of an irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship, not because of conduct arising from his vertigo. There was no evidence that the claimant's conduct arose in consequence of his vertigo; the claimant had previously suggested his type 2 diabetes affected his actions, but never linked his behaviour to vertigo.

The PCP was the respondent activating the dismissal process on 1 September 2022. The tribunal found no evidence that this PCP put the claimant at the substantial disadvantage claimed (being less able to deal with pressures such as increased workload and disciplinary procedures). The claimant gave no evidence supporting this disadvantage. Even considering an alternative disadvantage (inability to attend the hearing on 13 February 2023), the claimant was not signed off sick because of vertigo.

The PCP was the activation of the dismissal process on 1 September 2022. The tribunal found no particular disadvantage was identified by the claimant in the agreed list of issues. Even considering whether the PCP placed those with vertigo at a disadvantage compared to those without, there was no evidence establishing that the PCP put the claimant or others with vertigo at any particular disadvantage.

The claimant alleged he had to work increased hours and have more duties imposed compared to his female comparator Kate McAulay. The tribunal found they had the same script marking duties. The claimant did have more teaching hours (205 vs 159), which shifted the burden of proof. However, the respondent explained Ms McAulay had an additional role as project coordinator and did more research grant work, so her teaching allocation was reduced accordingly. The tribunal accepted this non-discriminatory explanation.

Both the claimant and his comparator Kate McAulay were employed as Lecturers (Grade 7), working full-time with the same salary of £52,841 per annum. The comparator was being paid the same as the claimant, so there was no less favourable term and the sex equality clause did not apply.

The tribunal found the claimant did protected acts (complaints about alleged racism in 2019, 2020, and 2022) and was subjected to detriments (invited to dismissal hearing, hearing proceeded in absence, dismissal). However, there was no causal link between the protected acts and the detriments. The claimant was dismissed due to concerns about irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence arising from his inappropriate language and behaviours, not because he had made complaints about racism. Senior decision-makers did not have the protected acts in mind when deciding to dismiss.