Ms M McCollin v Telecom Service Centres Ltd T/a Webhelp UK: 4112166/2019
| Judgment Date | 25 January 2022 |
| Citation | 4112166/2019 |
| Date | 25 January 2022 |
| Published date | 03 February 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No: 4112166/2019
5
Final Hearing in person held in Glasgow on 29 and 30 November 2021;
and 1 (hybrid Hearing, partly by CVP), 2, 3 and 6 December 2021;
Further written representations from parties on 8 and 16 December 2021; and
Members’ Meeting in chambers on 17 January 2022
10
Employment Judge Ian McPherson
Tribunal Member Ijaz Ashraf
Tribunal Member Vernon P Alexander
15
Ms Muawana McCollin Claimant
In Person
Supported by:
Ms Marigold Ahomade
20
Telecom Service Centres Ltd t/a Webhelp UK Respondents
Represented by:
Mr Rory Byrom
Solicitor
25
Instructed by:
Ms Lisa Nicol
HR People & Change
Manager
30
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
The unanimous Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that: -
(1) The breach of contract (failure to pay notice pay) head of complaint against
the respondents is dismissed as time-barred.
35
(2) In any event, the claimant having been dismissed by the respondents, on
11 July 2019, for gross misconduct, no notice pay would have been
payable to the claimant.
4112166/2019 Page 2
(3) The discrimination heads of complaint, insofar as time-barred, are allowed
to proceed, on the basis that it is just and equitable to allow them to
proceed, although not presented in time, and the Tribunal grants the
claimant an extension of time in terms of Section 123 of the Equality Act
2010.
5
(4) The claimant’s complaint of unlawful direct discrimination on the grounds
of race, in respect of her Afro-Caribbean ethnicity, as her protected
characteristic, is not well-founded, and her complaint that the respondents
discriminated against her contrary to Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010
is dismissed.
10
(5) By concession of the respondents, the Tribunal finds that, at all relevant
times, the claimant was a disabled person, within the meaning of Section
6 of the Equality Act 2010, on the basis of her physical impairments of
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, Anaemia, and Fibroids.
(6) In respect of her other asserted physical impairments of Back pain, and
15
Dry eyes, the Tribunal finds that the claimant has not established that, at
all relevant times, she was a disabled person, within the meaning of
Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, on the basis of those physical
impairments, as she has not shown them to be substantial, and / or of long-
term effect, on her normal day to day activities.
20
(7) The claimant’s complaint of direct discrimination on grounds of disability,
contrary to Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, is not well-founded, and
it is dismissed.
(8) The claimant’s complaint of discrimination arising from disability, contrary
to Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, is not well-founded, and it is
25
dismissed.
(9) The claimant’s complaint of the respondents’ failure to make reasonable
adjustments, contrary to Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, is not well-
founded, and it is dismissed.
4112166/2019 Page 3
(10) The claimant’s complaint of harassment on grounds of disability, contrary
to Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, is not well-founded, and it is
dismissed.
(11) The claimant’s complaint of victimisation by the respondents, contrary to
Section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, is not well-founded, and it is
5
dismissed.
(12) In these circumstances, the claimant’s claim against the respondents is
dismissed in its entirety.
REASONS
10
Introduction
1. This case first called before the full Tribunal, on Monday, 29 November 2021,
for a 5-day Final Hearing in person, as per Notice of Final Hearing issued to
15
both parties by the Tribunal on 17 August 2021, for full disposal, including
remedy, if appropriate. Before us, however, it was to assess the respondents’
liability (if any) for the claimant’s various unlawful disability and race
discrimination heads of complaint, as also wrongful dismissal / breach of
contract, remedy having been severed off during earlier case management by
20
another Employment Judge, as well as addressing some reserved, preliminary
issues relating to disability status and time-bar. Amended Notice of Final
Hearing in person, to determine liability only, was issued by the Tribunal to both
parties on 30 September 2021.
25
Claim and Response
2. The claimant, then acting through her legal representative, Lucy Neil at
Livingstone Brown, solicitors, Glasgow, presented her ET1 claim form in this
case to the Tribunal, on 4 November 2019, following ACAS early conciliation
30
between 18 October and 2 November 2019. It was accepted by the Tribunal
To continue reading
Request your trial