Case 4101629/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Greater Glasgow Health Board — 2022
- Case reference
- 4101629/2022
- Decision date
- 22 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Be
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race on 23 March 2022. On the ET1 she indicated that she did not have an ACAS Early Conciliation number and that ACAS did not have power to conciliate all or part of the claim. She began ACAS Early Conciliation on the same day, received the certificate on 25 March 2022, and emailed the Tribunal on 29 March 2022 asking for the claim form to be amended to include the certificate number.
The Tribunal found that race discrimination claims were subject to the ACAS Early Conciliation requirements. It held that the claimant had not complied with section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 when the claim was presented, and that the claim form wrongly confirmed that an exemption applied when none did. The later email giving the certificate number did not cure the defect because the original claim had not been presented correctly.
Applying Rule 12 and the authorities cited, the Tribunal held that it had no discretion to accept the claim and no jurisdiction to determine the direct race discrimination and harassment related to race complaints. The claim form was rejected under Rules 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(d), with an alternative statement that the claims were not well founded and were struck out under Rule 37(a) and (c).
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The Tribunal rejected the claim form under Rules 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(d) because it contained no ACAS Early Conciliation certificate number and wrongly asserted an exemption. It held it had no jurisdiction to determine the harassment related to race claim; it also stated in the alternative that the claims were struck out under Rule 37(a) and (c). | Struck out | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal rejected the claim form under Rules 12(1)(c) and 12(1)(d) because it contained no ACAS Early Conciliation certificate number and wrongly asserted an exemption. It held it had no jurisdiction to determine the direct race discrimination claim; it also stated in the alternative that the claims were struck out under Rule 37(a) and (c). | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 12(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 12(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- Rule 37(a) and (c) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Adams v British Telecommunications Plc
- E.ON Control Solutions Limited v Caspall
- Ash v ISS Facility Services Limited
- Pryce v Baxterstorey Limited
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.