ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Tribunal in Case No: S/4100294/2017 Issued Following Open Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh on nd June 2017 at 2.30 pm Employment Judge: J G d’Inverno, QVRM, TD, VR, WS (Sitting Alone) Mr B Mycyk v Respondent — 2017

Mr B Mycyk applied online on 31 December 2016 for a Female Monitoring Support Officer role advertised by G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Ltd. In his ET1 he ticked sex discrimination, said he had seen the advert, sent his CV, and received confirmation, but he did not specify the discriminatory act. At the case management stage he said, in substance, that he was male and therefore discriminated against.

The tribunal found that the respondent held a contract to provide monitoring services in Northern Ireland under which visits to female subjects had to be carried out with a female member of staff or trained female chaperone, and that a male officer could only attend if a female supervising officer was present. It found that the respondent needed to recruit female monitoring support officers because the essential duties of the role could only be carried out by a woman, and held that the requirement for the role to be female was a genuine occupational requirement. It also found that the requirement was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of meeting the contractual obligations for monitoring female subjects.

The tribunal concluded that the claim as pleaded did not disclose a relevant complaint of discrimination, and that no proper complaint could be inferred from the ET1, the CMD agenda return, or the claimant's oral clarification. It refused to strike out the case at that stage, taking account of the claimant's status as a party litigant, that English was not his first language, and the need to allow a reasonable opportunity to be heard. However, it held that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success and made a deposit order under Rule 39(1), with the amount to be fixed after the claimant provided vouched financial information. If he did not provide that information, the tribunal said the amount would be determined without further reference to him.