Lisa Aird v Scottish Water: 4104454/2018
| Judgment Date | 17 May 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
| Date | 17 May 2019 |
| Citation | 4104454/2018 |
| Published date | 04 June 2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
ETZ4(WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5
Case No: 4104454/2018 Hearing at Edinburgh on 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30
November, and 3, 4 and 5 December 2018, and 25 and 26 February 2019; and
Members’ Meeting on 12 April 2019
Employment Judge: M A Macleod
10
Mr J Terry
Ms E McArthur
Lisa Aird Claimant
15
Represented by
Ms S Shiels
Solicitor
Scottish Water Respondent
20
Represented by
Ms A Stobart
Advocate
25
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The unanimous Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimant’s claims
all fail and are dismissed.
30
REASONS
1. The claimant presented a claim to the Employment Tribunal on 30 April
2018, raised against two respondents, namely Scottish Water and Kenny
35
Laing, in which she complained that she had been constructively unfairly
dismissed by the respondent and unlawfully discriminated against on the
grounds of sex, and, by association, disability.
0
4104454/18 Page 2
2. The respondent presented an ET3 on behalf of both then respondents,
denying that the claimant had been dismissed or unlawfully discriminated
against.
3. A Hearing on the merits was fixed to take place commencing on 26
November 2018 and the seven following days. As it turned out, the hearing
5
did not conclude within the scheduled diet, and continued on 25 and 26
February 2019.
4. The claimant was represented by Ms S Shiels, solicitor, and the respondent
by Ms A Stobart, advocate.
5. Shortly before the hearing was due to commence, the claimant withdrew the
10
claim insofar as it was directed against Mr Laing, leaving the respondent as
the only respondent in the case.
6. The parties presented a joint bundle of productions, to which were added
supplementary documents in the course of the hearing.
7. The claimant gave evidence on her own behalf, and called Monique Helene
15
Fernandez Primrose, Customer Team Leader, as a witness.
8. The respondent called as witnesses the following:
• Jane Archibald, Team Leader;
• Kenny Laing, Contact Centre and Scheduling Manager;
• Janice May Porteous, Team Manager;
20
• Ian William Burnett, Waste Water Network Performance Manager;
and
• Richard Lavery, Head of Revenue.
9. Based on the evidence led and the information provided, the Tribunal was
able to find the following facts admitted or proved.
25
0
4104454/18 Page 3
Findings in Fact
10. The claimant, whose date of birth is 31 August 1993, commenced
employment with the respondent on 4 April 2011, as a Customer Services
Advisor (“CSA”). Her letter of appointment dated 4 April 2011 (69) attached
her contract of employment (70ff). She was appointed to work as a CSA
5
within the Contact Centre and Scheduling department of the Customer
Service Delivery section, based at the respondent’s office in Fairmilehead,
Edinburgh.
11. Her normal working hours were 20 per week, on a rotating shift
arrangement agreed locally. She was also a member of the Local
10
Government Pension Scheme.
12. The respondent is a public body responsible for providing water and
sewage services throughout Scotland.
13. When the claimant commenced employment, she sat in the open plan area
to the top right hand side of the first floor plan (378), usually seated at the
15
seats numbered 198 to 200, though at weekends she would move to 180
where fewer staff would be based. Team leaders would sit at smaller banks
of desks, as would other managers.
14. The claimant’s direct line manager in the Contact Centre was initially Kenny
Gilroy, and then Roderick Bell.
20
15. The claimant worked in the Contact Centre for approximately 2 years, but
then sought to move to the Wholesale Service Desk (“WSD”), where she
was based around the area close to the corridor next to the kitchen and
toilets, at or around desk number 153. A glass partition separated the WSD
from the Contact Centre. In the WSD, her direct line manager was Jane
25
Archibald, a Risk Technician. Ms Archibald answered directly to Janice
Porteous, Team Leader, and she in turn answered directly to Kenny Laing.
16. The claimant’s initial appointment was temporary, and following several
fixed term extensions to her contract, she was offered a permanent position
with the respondent with effect from 1 July 2012 (77).
30
To continue reading
Request your trial