Case 4101850/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Member Mr I Ashraf Tribunal Member Ms M McAllister Mr S Sweeney v Represented by: Mr R Clark - Solicitor Ministry of Defence — 2023
- Case reference
- 4101850/2023
- Decision date
- 13 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Beyzade Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Mr I Ashraf, Ms M McAllister
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member Mr I Ashraf Tribunal Member Ms M McAllister Mr S Sweeney
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal in Glasgow heard the case on 18, 19, 20 and 21 September and 8 December 2023. Its unanimous judgment was that Mr Sweeney’s complaint that he had been subjected to detriments contrary to section 146(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was not well founded and was dismissed.
The extract records that oral reasons were given at the hearing, but it does not set out the detailed factual findings or reasoning. The judgment therefore records only the final outcome: dismissal of the trade union detriments complaint, with no monetary award mentioned.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Complaint that the claimant had been subjected to detriments contrary to section 146(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 146(1) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.