Mr M Cowie and others v Scottish Fire and Rescue Service: 4105098/2020 and others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 August 2021 |
| Date | 13 August 2021 |
| Citation | 4105098/2020 and others |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 15 September 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Unlawful Deduction from Wages |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case Numbers: 4105098/2020; 4105099/2020;
4105100/2020; 4105101; 4105102/2020;
5
4105103/2020; 4105104/2020; 4105105/2020;
4105106/2020; 4105108/2020; 4105109/2020;
4105110/2020 and 4105111/2019
(Multiple Nos 9530 and 9531 As per attached Schedule)
10
Hearing held in Glasgow on 12, 13-16 July 2021
Deliberations 22 and 23 July and 11 August 2021
15
Employment Judge: D Hoey
Tribunal member: N Bakshi
Tribunal member: N Elliot
Mr M Cowie Claimants
Represented by:
20
Mr J Murphy Mr McHugh
(Counsel)
Mr D Gray Instructed by
Messrs Thompsons
Mr M Cahill
25
Mr P O’Hare
Mr D Harkins
30
Mr H Young
Ms S Hodge
Ms L Campbell
35
Ms M Kirkland
Ms M Cassidy
40
Ms K A McCrone
Case No.: 4105098/2020 & Others Page 2
Scottish Fire and Rescue Service Respondent
Represented by:
Ms MacSporran
(Solicitor)
5
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The unanimous judgment of the Employment Tribunal is:
1. The claim in respect of the claimants who raised a claim under section 15 of
10
the Equality Act 2010 (namely Mr M Cowie, Mr J Murphy, Mr D Gray, Mr M
Cahill, Mr P O’Hare, Mr D Harkins, Mr L H Young and Ms S Hodge) is upheld
and the Tribunal declares that there was unfavourable treatment (removal of
choice and flexibility with regard to TOIL and accrued leave) because of
something arising in consequence of a disability which was not objectively
15
justified.
2. From the information before the Tribunal we did not consider it just or
equitable to award any compensation to any of the claimants.
3. The claim in respect of indirect sex discrimination is ill founded and is
dismissed.
20
REASONS
1. This case involves 2 sets of claims: a group claiming a breach of section 15
of the Equality Act 2010 and a separate group of claimants alleging breach of
section 19 of the Equality Act 2010. Both claims stem from the same situation
and action of the respondent which was why at previous case management
25
preliminary hearings the claims had been conjoined.
2. The hearing was conducted remotely via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) with the
claimants’ agent and the respondent’s agent attending the entire hearing, with
witnesses attending as necessary, all being able to contribute to the hearing
fairly. Breaks were taken during the evidence to ensure the parties were able
30
to put all relevant questions to the witnesses. The Tribunal was satisfied that
Case No.: 4105098/2020 & Others Page 3
the hearing had been conducted in a fair and appropriate manner, with the
practice direction on remote hearings being followed, such that a decision
could be made on the basis of the evidence led.
Case management
3. The original first day of the hearing had been converted into a case
5
management preliminary hearing for various reasons and the case did not
start properly until day 2 of the original hearing.
4. We agreed the relevant productions, some of which had been revised from
the original bundle. We also agreed a timetable for the hearing of evidence
and the parties worked together to assist the Tribunal in achieving the
10
overriding objective, in dealing with matters justly and fairly taking account of
the issues, cost and proportionality.
5. A statement of agreed facts and a list of issues were produced which assisted
the Tribunal and the parties in focussing the issues in this case.
Issues to be determined
15
6. The issues to be determined are as follows (which is based on the agreed list
and which has been revised to reflect the specific requirements of the
legislation).
Time limits
7. The respondent argues that the claims are out of time on the basis that the
20
decision to utilise the special leave policy in cases such as those which are
the subject of the claims was made in March 2020, and this is the act which
is in issue.
8. The respondent also argues that any act which occurred prior to 15th April
2020 is time barred and therefore the individual claims are time barred where
25
the act complained of occurred prior to that date.
9. Have the claimants brought their claims in time?
To continue reading
Request your trial