ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101287/2020 Hearing by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 25, 26, and May 2021 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: S Gray Tribunal Member: A McFarlane Steuart Wilson v Represented by Mr D Hay Advocate Instructed by Mr R Milvenan Solicitor The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland — 2021

The claimant was a Police Scotland Authorised Firearms Officer with inflammatory bowel disease and ulcerative colitis, which the tribunal found amounted to disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. After he was absent from work in January 2019 and his firearms authorisation was temporarily withdrawn, he returned on modified duties and later progressed through the respondent's reinstatement process. Although his original ET1 pleaded direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, harassment and victimisation, he withdrew the sections 13, 15 and 26 claims after the evidence had closed, leaving only the section 27 victimisation claim for decision.

The tribunal held that the pleadings were sufficient to include two alleged detriments: the meeting with Chief Inspector Miller on 26 August 2019, and the delay in reinstating the claimant to AFO duties. On the first issue, it preferred CI Miller's evidence and his contemporaneous note. It found that the meeting was part of the intrusive but justified firearms re-authorisation process, that CI Miller was properly concerned about whether the claimant had made declarations while unfit and whether there were any ongoing issues with management, and that he accepted the claimant's explanation and moved the application on. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that CI Miller was motivated by the grievance or tribunal claim.

On the alleged delay, the tribunal found that the material period was from 26 August to 16 October 2019, when the form was with Superintendent Pettigrew. It accepted his evidence that the delay was explained by operational pressures, a three-week period of annual leave, other time-critical work, and the need to speak to CI Miller before making the decision. The tribunal found no basis for concluding that the claimant's grievance or Employment Tribunal claim caused the delay, and rejected the suggested inferences from Inspector Brand's emails. It also held that the comparators relied on were materially different. The victimisation claim was dismissed and no award was made.