Mr M Harvie v Scottish Ambulance Service Board: 4105124/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 2023 |
| Date | 14 June 2023 |
| Citation | 4105124/2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 30 October 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
E.T. Z4 (WR)
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
5
Case No: 4105124/2022
Final Hearing Held at Inverness on 22 - 25 May 2023,
deliberation day on 1 June 2023
10
Employment Judge A Kemp
Tribunal Member I Ashraf
Tribunal Member F Parr
15
Mr M Harvie Claimant
Represented by:
Mr G Robinson,
Lay Representative
20
Scottish Ambulance Service Board Respondent
Represented by:
Mr G Fletcher, 25
Solicitor
30
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is that
(i) the claimant was unfairly dismissed under section 98 of the
Employment Rights Act 1996,
(ii) the respondent failed to comply with its duty to make a 35
reasonable adjustment for the claimant’s disability under
sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010,
(iii) the respondent was in breach of contract in dismissing the
claimant without notice,
(iv) the total compensation awarded to the claimant and payable by 40
the respondent is TWENTY TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED
41
05124
/202
2
P
age
2
AND SIXTY EIGHT POUNDS THIRTY FIVE PENCE (£22,468.35) of
which
(a) £16,503.68 is in respect of unfair dismissal,
(b) £1,712.00 is in respect of breach of duty in failing to make
a reasonable adjustment, and 5
(c) £4,252.67 is in respect of breach of contract.
REASONS
Introduction 10
1. This was a Final Hearing of the claims of unfair dismissal, disability
discrimination as to an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments
and breach of contract as to notice pay. A claim for notice pay was referred
to in the Claim Form but had not been identified in the lists of issues
prepared by each party. Mr Fletcher confirmed at the commencement of 15
the hearing that there was no objection to that claim being made on the
basis that the claim was purely for damages for the notice period, as it
was.
2. The claimant’s status as a disabled person by virtue of dyslexia at the
material time being January to September 2022 was admitted by the 20
respondent. The respondent accepted during preliminary discussions that
it had knowledge of the claimant’s disability from 30 May 2022 but not
before that date. The claimant alleged that the knowledge was earlier than
that, and was from the start of the most recent period of his employment
with the respondent, he having earlier been employed after which there 25
was a break in continuous service. The claims were defended save for
those two concessions by the respondent. Certain points of detail were
conceded during the evidence.
3. There had been a Preliminary Hearing on 14 November 2022, case
management orders issued on 27 January 2023, and a further Preliminary 30
Hearing on 3 April 2023 after which orders were issued. That had included
the identification of the provision, criterion or practice relied on, which had
41
05124
/202
2
P
age
3
not been done, but which was discussed at the commencement of the
hearing.
Issues
4. The Tribunal identified the issues for determination during the preliminary
discussions at the commencement of the hearing, as the parties had not 5
been able to agree the same. The discussion included that as to the
breach of contract claim as above, and the matters relied on for the PCPs.
The Judge drafted issues and gave parties the opportunity to comment on
them. Those issues were:
(i) What was the reason, or principal reason, for the claimant’s 10
dismissal?
(ii) If potentially fair under section 98(2) of the Employment Rights Act
1996 was it fair or unfair under section 98(4) of that Act?
(iii) When did the respondent know or ought the respondent reasonably
to have known of the claimant’s disability? 15
(iv) Did the respondent apply a provision, criterion and/ or practice (the
"PCP") to the claimant, being (i) the application of the respondent’s
disciplinary policy or (ii) the application of any policy to refer what
was said in the investigation or disciplinary hearing to Police
Scotland? 20
(v) Did either PCP put the claimant at a substantial disadvantage
compared to someone without the claimant's disability under section
20 of the Equality Act 2010?
(vi) Did the respondent know, or could it reasonably have been expected
to know, that the claimant was likely to be placed at the 25
disadvantage?
(vii) Did the respondent fail in its duty to take such steps as it would have
been reasonable to take to avoid the disadvantage? The claimant
alleges that the following adjustments to the PCP should have been
made- 30
(a) Obtaining the claimant’s personnel file as part of the
investigation.
To continue reading
Request your trial