E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case no 4100591/2020 Held at Dundee on 26, 27, and July and 2, and August 2021 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Tribunal Member Ms F Paton Tribunal Member Dr R A’Brook Mr A Greasley-Adams v Represented by: Dr C Greasley-Adams Royal Mail Group Ltd — 2021

Mr Greasley-Adams, a part-time MGV driver, was agreed to be disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. He brought complaints under section 47B ERA, section 26 EqA and section 27 EqA arising from disputes about driver infringements, overtime allocation, the handling of bullying and harassment complaints, and the consequences of the earlier COT3 settlement.

On the whistleblowing complaint, the tribunal accepted that disclosures about driver infringements could in principle be disclosures of information tending to show legal or health and safety concerns. It nonetheless found that the claimant did not make those disclosures in his reasonable belief in the public interest. The tribunal held that the real context was the claimant's concern about overtime opportunities and the role of Mr Knox, and it also found that a separate allegation about falsified tachographs lacked the factual content and specificity required by Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth.

On harassment, the tribunal found some unwanted conduct related to disability: colleagues discussed the claimant's behaviour, Mr McEwan made an allegation about access to sickness records, and the incident involving Ms Williamson was discussed. It did not find that the Mr Fix It complaint involved disability-related conduct. However, in the context of a properly undertaken bullying and harassment investigation, the tribunal held that it was not reasonable for that conduct to have the effect required by section 26 EqA, even though the claimant was offended when he learned of the comments. The harassment complaint was dismissed, and the tribunal also held that events on or before 9 September 2019 were out of time with no just and equitable extension.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the previous Tribunal claim, asserting rights under the COT3, and the claimant's own harassment allegations were protected acts. It nevertheless found that the alleged detriments were not because of protected acts: the bullying and harassment complaints were prompted by the claimant's conduct, the overtime and duty-allocation issues were operational or reflected differing interpretations of agreements, and the Mr Fix It complaint was not shown to be fictitious or linked to protected acts. The victimisation complaint was dismissed, and the tribunal again held that detriments before 9 September 2019 were out of time. No compensation was awarded.