Mr Oliver Hyams (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2019

Mr D Pugh was a retained firefighter employed by Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service, with Mr Emyr Jones as the station officer involved in many of the events in issue. On the section 15 disability discrimination claim, the tribunal accepted that Mr Jones knew the claimant had dyslexia, but found that the 118-hour availability contract was reached for operational reasons, including daytime and night-time cover and the claimant's own wish to maximise hours and gain experience. The tribunal held that the section 15 complaint was brought out of time, that the agreement to 118 hours was a one-off act with continuing consequences, and that there was no just and equitable basis to extend time; it also found the treatment was not because of disability and was not objectively unfavourable.

On the section 26 harassment complaint, the tribunal accepted that a joke about dyslexia was made at a diversity training evening in January 2014 and found it likely that similar jokes were made. It held that the conduct could and did have the effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating a hostile environment, but the complaint was outside the three-month time limit. The tribunal found the claimant knew of the incident by 2014/2015, had no sufficient explanation for delaying the claim until 2018, and it was not just and equitable to extend time.

The section 27 victimisation claim covered a number of alleged acts, including Mr Jones's attendance at the 8 September 2016 emergency call to the claimant's grandmother's property, alleged conduct towards Mrs Pugh, alleged discussions with the claimant's employer, and alleged gestures from a car. The tribunal found some matters were not proved as alleged and others were ordinary or awkward chance encounters in a small community. It accepted that Mr Jones should have withdrawn from the emergency scene earlier, but found his conduct arose from a battle of wills and the family dispute, not because the claimant had raised a discrimination complaint. The tribunal also held that the alleged non-disclosure of grievance material was an administrative or bureaucratic error rather than deliberate suppression because of protected acts, and that the disciplinary warning and appeal outcome were based on the claimant's conduct as found by the respondent.

The whistleblowing detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996 depended on the 11 August 2015 FBU email to HR referring to, among other matters, an alleged false expense claim by Mr Jones. The tribunal held that the claimant did not himself make the disclosure to the employer for section 43C purposes, and that the alternative routes in sections 43G and 43H were not made out on the facts. No monetary award was made.