E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100049/2017 Held in Glasgow on 1, 5, and March 2019 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Members: Mrs E A Farrell Ms M McAllister Mr James Hunter v Represented by: Ms L Neil - Solicitor The Richmond Fellowship Scotland — 2019

Mr Hunter worked for The Richmond Fellowship Scotland as a Senior Support Worker from 21 April 2009 until his dismissal on 5 October 2016. The tribunal found that the concerns he raised to Ms Bell and Mr Sheard about staffing levels and compliance with the Glasgow City Council contract were protected disclosures within s.43B(1)(b) and (d) ERA 1996 and were made in the public interest. It also found that the later disciplinary allegations arose from complaints by Mr Young and Ms McLean about Mr Hunter's handling of care matters, including the service user's mobility scooter request and his conduct at the 3 December 2015 meeting.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 failed because the tribunal was in no doubt that the protected disclosures played no part in the dismissal. It found that the catalyst for the disciplinary investigation was the external complaints, that Ms Tallinn's investigation was thorough, and that the allegations, if established, could amount to gross misconduct. Mr Houston's summary dismissal decision was therefore based on misconduct, not on the protected disclosures.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that Mr Hunter probably did not receive the 22 April 2016 invitation, but found that he did receive the 29 April 2016 rescheduled hearing letter and likely received but did not read the 12 September 2016 letter. It held that the respondent was entitled to rely on occupational health advice that he was fit to attend management meetings with adjustments, that the hearing could proceed in his absence if he did not attend, and that the appeal by Mr Ibbotson was a careful reconsideration of the dismissal. The victimisation claim under s.27 EqA 2010 failed because the dismissal was found to be for misconduct, not because the respondent believed Mr Hunter had done a protected act. No monetary award was made.