Mr A Hamilton v Community Safety Glasgow (formerly Glasgow Community Safety Services Ltd): 116513/2010
| Judgment Date | 11 April 2017 |
| Citation | 116513/2010 |
| Published date | 24 April 2017 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: S/116513/10
Held in Glasgow on 24, 25 and 26 May 2016; 31 May 2016; 5 1, 2, 7, and 8 June 2016; 27,
28 and 29 July 2016;
1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 August 2016;
15 August 2016 (Hearing on Submissions); and
16 August 2016 and 1 February 2017 (Members’ Meetings) 10
Employment Judge: Ian McPherson
Members: Hugh Boyd
Andrew Ross
15
Mr Andrew Paterson Hamilton Claimant
In Person
20 Community Safety Glasgow Respondent
(formerly Glasgow Community Represented by:
& Safety Services Ltd) Mrs Catherine Greig -
Solicitor
25
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The unanimous Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that:- 30
(1) the claimant was fairly dismissed by the respondents, with effect from 19
August 2010, on grounds of capability, and so his complaint of unfair
dismissal, contrary to Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, is
not well-founded, and accordingly that part of his claim against the 35
respondents is dismissed by the Tribunal;
(2) the respondents having accepted that the claimant was a disabled person, in
terms of Section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Tribunal
finds that the respondents did not know that the claimant was a disabled 4 0
person until 7 December 2009 when they received an Occupational Health
S/116513/10 Page
2
report from Dr Robert Phillips at Capita Health Solutions dated 1 December
2009;
(3) the respondents did not fail in their duty to make reasonable adjustments for
the claimant, in terms of Sections 3A, 4A and 18B of the Disability 5
Discrimination Act 1995, and accordingly that part of his claim against the
respondents is dismissed by the Tribunal;
(4) esto there was a breach of Section 4A, the Tribunal finds that it was not a
continuing breach and it had ended no later than 24 May 2010, and the 10
Tribunal claim having been lodged on 28 October 2010, that part of his claim
against the respondents is out of time in terms of paragraph 3 of Schedule
3 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and accordingly that part of
the claim against the respondents is dismissed by the Tribunal as being
time-barred, it not being just and equitable to allow that claim late; 15
(5) further, the acts relied upon by the claimant to found his complaint of
disability related harassment by the respondents, contrary to Sections 3B
and 4 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as specified at
paragraphs 14(a) to 14(e) of the further and better particulars for the 20
claimant dated 11 November 2011, alleged to have taken place more than 3
months prior to the presentation of his Tribunal claim on 28 October 2010,
those acts complained of by the claimant are out of time in terms of
paragraph 3 of schedule 3 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995,
and accordingly that part of the claim against the respondents is dismissed 25
by the Tribunal as being time-barred, it not being just and equitable to allow
those claims late;
(6) esto those complaints of disability related harassment had not been
dismissed by the Tribunal as time-barred, the respondents did not harass the 30
claimant, contrary to Sections 3B and 4 of the Disability Discrimination
Act 1995, and accordingly that part of his claim against the respondents
would have been dismissed by the Tribunal in any event;
S/116513/10 Page
3
(7) insofar as the claim before the Tribunal may have included any complaint of
victimisation of the claimant by the respondents, contrary to Section 55 of
the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, that complaint is not well-founded,
as the claimant has not pled any protected act in terms of Section 55(2), and 5
accordingly that part of his claim against the respondents is dismissed by the
Tribunal; and
(8) the respondents having reserved their position in relation to costs, any
application by the respondents for the Tribunal to consider making an award 10
of expenses against the claimant, in terms of Rule 76 of the Employment
Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, should be made by written case
management application, within 28 days of the date on which this Judgment
is issued to parties, as per Rule 77.
15
REASONS
Introduction
20
1. On 28 October 2010, the claimant, acting on his own behalf, presented an
ET1 claim form to the Tribunal, suing the respondents, then named as
Glasgow Community & Safety Services, following the termination of his
employment as a Community Enhancement Operative on 30 July 2010,
where the claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal against them, and 2 5
also a claim of disability discrimination, seeking an award of compensation
only, in the event his claim was to be successful.
2. Thereafter, on 30 November 2010, Mr Michael Hennessy, a solicitor with
Glasgow City Council Legal Services, presented an ET3 response to the 30
Tribunal, on behalf of the respondents, resisting the claim, and setting out
that the claimant was fairly dismissed, in terms of the Employment Rights
To continue reading
Request your trial