Mr J Gilmour v Ramsdens Financial Ltd: 4111314/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 January 2021 |
| Citation | 4111314/2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 18 February 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4111314/2019
Held in Glasgow via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 17, 18 and 19 November
2020
Members’ Meeting held on Tuesday 22 December 2020 (V)
Employment Judge: Rory McPherson
Members: G Coyle
S Singh
Mr J Gilmour Claimant
Ramsdens Financial Ltd Respondent
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The unanimous judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that;
1. In relation to, what are identified as s20, s21 Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010)
complaints of the 6 separate asserted PCP’s;
a. S20, s21 EA 2010 PCP 1 “Not carrying out individual risk assessments for
employees returning from long terms sick, particularly those returning from
having a stroke “(the proposed Risk Assessment PCP) does not succeed,
this Tribunal do not have jurisdiction to consider same; and
b. S20, s21 EA 2010 PCP 2 “Not obtaining Occupational Health report
immediately upon employees returning from long terms sick to see what
adjustments should be considered, particularly for those returning from
stroke.” (the proposed Occupational Health PCP) does not succeed, this
Tribunal do not have jurisdiction to consider same; and
c. S20, s21 EA 2010 PCP 3 “Assigning specific managers only to specific
branches, and not giving adequate consideration to managerial requests to
4111314/2019 Page 2
swap branches.” (the proposed Branch Manager Swap PCP) does not
succeed; and
d. S20, s21 EA 2010 PCP 4 “Not paying for taxi to and from work whilst Access
to Work requests to DWP are being considered.” (the proposed taxi
payment PCP) does not succeed; and
e. S20, s21 EA 2010 PCP 5 “Not maintaining salary levels for disabled
employees who require reasonable adjustments to be made to their role to
allow them to continue in their role, for a temporary period whilst those
adjustments are being implemented” (the proposed salary maintenance
PCP) does not succeed; and
f. S20, s21 EA 2010 PCP 6 “Policy on what is deemed to an acceptable
staffing level.” (the propose staffing level PCP) does not succeed; and
2. The claimants claim for constructive unfair dismissal does not succeed;
3. The Tribunal declines to make any recommendations in terms of s124(2) (c) of
EA 2010.
REASONS
Introduction
Preliminary Procedure
1. The Final Hearing which took place via CVP, followed upon Preliminary
Hearings on 17 January 2020 (the January 2020 PH) and 4 June 2020 (the
June 2020 PH). The January 2020 Preliminary Hearing identified that the claims
were for constructive unfair dismissal and in respect of s20 of the Equality Act
2010. The June 2020 determined, both parties having indicated a willingness
for the Final Hearing to take place remotely, that the Final Hearing take place
by CVP (either by hybrid or full CVP). It was subsequently agreed that the Final
Hearing would operate fully via CVP and that witness statements would be
used.
2. Prior to the Final Hearing, on Friday 13 November 2020 respondent witness
statements (which were identified as not having been amended since they were
4111314/2019 Page 3
presented in draft on 5 November 2020 to the claimant) were provided to the
Tribunal for the Final Hearing.
3. On Friday 13 November 2020 a Bundle headed Respondents List of
Documents which was operated as the Joint Bundle was provided.
4. On Friday 13 November 2020 an undated claimant witness statement was
provided.
5. On Monday 16 November 2020, in advance of the Final Hearing additional
documents were provided;
a. the claimant Attempted April 2018 E-mail,
b. the respondent To Whom It May Concern April 2018 letter, and
c. a respondent provided explanation email, from the respondent IT Director in
response to provision of the claimant Attempted April 2018 E-mail.
There was no objection and the additional documents were added to the Joint
Bundle. In addition, respondent proposed Time Table of Events and Agreed
Facts (the respondent proposed agreed chronology of events was provided to
the Tribunal) was provided.
6. The evidential element of the Final Hearing commenced on Tuesday 17
November 2020 and concluded on Thursday 19 November 2020. Evidence in
chief was given for the claimant, via written unsigned and undated statement,
the claimant being subject to cross examination and re-examination. Evidence
for the respondent was given via witness statement Scott Carson SBDM (Staff
Business Development Manager) West Scotland dated Monday 4 November
2020 Tom O’Donnelly (Regional Manager) dated Tuesday 5 Nov 2020 and
Leanne McNamara (HR Manager) Tuesday 5 November 2020 each of which
was taken as Evidence in chief and each of whom were subject to cross
examination.
7. Following the evidential element of the Final Hearing, parties were:
a. permitted until Tuesday 3 December 2020, or as otherwise agreed between
the parties, to exchange their respective full written submissions (the
To continue reading
Request your trial