Mr P McCue v Civil Nuclear Police Authority: 4111346/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 April 2022 |
| Date | 12 April 2022 |
| Published date | 27 April 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Religion or Belief Discrimination |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case Number: 4111346/2021
5
Hearing held in Glasgow on 14 to 21 March 2022
Deliberations 22 – 24 March 2022
Employment Judge D Hoey
10
Tribunal Member J Lindsay
Tribunal Member A McFarlane
Mr P McCue Claimant
15 Represented by:
Mr Maxwell -
Solicitor
20 Civil Nuclear Police Authority Respondent
Represented by:
Mr Stilitz QC -
Counsel
[Instructed by
25 Respondent]
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
1. The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that the claimant’s claim that he
had been subject to unlawful religious harassment in respect of incidents that
30 occurred on 1 June 2020 and 17 August 2020 (in terms of section 26 of the
Equality Act 2010) is ill founded, as while the claims had been made in time
and were acts for which the respondent was liable, the respondent had
satisfied the Tribunal that all reasonable steps had been taken such as to
entitle it to a defence in terms of section 109(4) of the Equality Act 2010.
35 2. The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that the claimant’s claim that he
had been subject to unlawful religious harassment (in terms of section 26 of
the Equality Act 2010) for which the respondent is liable, in relation to the
incident that occurred on 30 June 2021 is well founded (the respondent not
4111346/2021
Page
2
having satisfied the Tribunal that all reasonable steps were taken pursuant to
section 109(4) of the Equality Act 2010).
3. A separate remedy hearing will be fixed to determine what, if any remedy,
should be awarded in respect of the foregoing unlawful act.
REASONS 5
1. By ET1 accepted on 9 September 2021 the claimant claimed that he had been
subject to unlawful harassment for which the respondent was liable. Early
conciliation had commenced on 2 1 July 2021 with the ACAS Certificate issued
on 13 August 2021.
2. The hearing was conducted in person with the claimant’s agent and the 10
respondent’s agent attending the entire hearing, with witnesses attending as
necessary, all being able to contribute to the hearing fairly. Due to the impact
of the pandemic, some of the witnesses attended the hearing remotely and
there were no issues arising.
Case management 15
3. The parties had worked together to focus the issues in dispute and had
provided a statement of agreed facts and a list of issues. Both documents
were refined as the case progressed.
4. A timetable for the hearing of evidence had been agreed and the parties
worked together to assist the Tribunal in achieving the overriding objective, in 20
dealing with matters justly and fairly taking account of the issues, cost and
proportionality. The hearing had been set down for 10 days but robust case
management ensured the hearing was concluded within 6 days. Each witness
had provided a written witness statement with the evidence being
appropriately challenged. 25
5. It was agreed that remedy would be reserved, with a separate hearing to be
fixed if necessary.
4111346/2021
Page
3
Issues to be determined
6. It is accepted that the following incidents occurred
a. On 1 June 2020 the claimant found a document with “UDA no
surrender” written on it in his pigeon hole;
b. On 17 August 2020 the claimant’s wife found a piece of paper inside 5
his work jacket which had the words “UDA no surrender” written on it;
and
c. On 30 June 2021 the claimant found the graffiti “FTP” on his coffee
mug in the police kitchen area at Hunterston, which was understood
to stand for “Fuck the Pope”. 10
7. It was accepted that the incidents set out had the purpose or effect of violating
the claimant’s dignity and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading,
humiliating or offensive environment for him (such that they amounted to
unlawful religious harassment).
8. The issues to be determined are as follows (which is based on the agreed list 15
which was has been updated to reflect the issues in dispute).
Who perpetrated the relevant acts?
9. Were the 3 incidents perpetrated by an employee or agent of the respondent?
10. If so, were such acts done in the course of the relevant employee’s
employment or within the relevant agent’s authority, such that the respondent 20
is vicariously liable for their acts?
Time limits
11. Given the first 2 incidents occurred outwith the limitation period for raising a
claim, do the acts of discrimination relied upon by the claimant amount to an
act continuing over a period? 25
12. If not, should the limitation period be extended on the basis that it would be
just and equitable to do so?
To continue reading
Request your trial