ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4100565/2017 Hearing at Edinburgh on 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and August, September and October 2018 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Ms G Kennedy Mr I Drysdale Dawn Bingham v Represented by Mr G Bonelle West Lothian Council — 2018

The claimant, a long-serving trading standards officer, alleged disability discrimination, constructive unfair dismissal and detriments after making a protected disclosure. The tribunal accepted that she suffered from ulcerative colitis and that the respondent knew she had that condition from an email in 2011, but it did not accept that the respondent had detailed knowledge of her condition's effects in 2015 or 2016. It preferred Mr Machin's evidence about the March 2016 discussions over the claimant's account, finding that she was asked to attend County Buildings Annexe more often because of team-working and communication concerns identified in a SWOT review, and that she raised logistical and car-sharing points rather than disability or toilet-facility concerns at the time.

On direct discrimination and reasonable adjustments, the tribunal held that the claimant was not treated less favourably because of disability when she was asked to increase her attendance at County Buildings Annexe. It found the request was applied across the team, that Employee B provided a comparator, and that the claimant never in fact had to implement the change because she went off sick and later was told by Mr Smith that she would not be required to return to County Buildings Annexe. The tribunal also held that, even if a PCP was identified, the claimant had not shown a substantial disadvantage arising from her disability, had not raised the toilet issue with management when the change was discussed, and had not proved that the respondent failed to make a reasonable adjustment.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal rejected that the change of job title from Senior Enforcement Officer to Fair Trading Officer, the proposed change of work base, the grievance process, the bullying and harassment complaint, or the sickness absence management amounted individually or cumulatively to a repudiatory breach. It found the title change did not alter her duties, pay or grade, that the grievance was investigated in detail albeit over a long period, and that the absence review process and later redeployment discussions were handled appropriately. It held that by the time she resigned on 7 April 2017 there was no operative breach capable of founding a constructive dismissal claim.

On the protected disclosure claim, the tribunal found the March 2016 disclosure had been submitted anonymously and that the managers accused by the claimant were not aware that she was the source. It accepted that the counter-fraud investigation concluded there was sufficient evidence that two employees had abused flexi time and pool cars, but it did not accept that the claimant had identified or proved any detriment suffered on the ground that she made the disclosure. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.