E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4101860/20235 Held at Inverness on August 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr R Munro v SGL Carbon Fibers Ltd — 2023

At the preliminary hearing on 7 August 2023, Employment Judge N M Hosie held that Mr Robbie Munro was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of autism. The tribunal accepted evidence that he had difficulties with communication, social interaction, recognising nuance, and coping with new or unfamiliar situations, and it found that those effects were substantial rather than merely minor or trivial. The tribunal referred to Goodwin v Patent Office when explaining that the assessment must focus on what the claimant cannot do, or can only do with difficulty, rather than on the things he can do.

The tribunal then considered the disability discrimination claim. It recorded that the pleaded case was confused and unclear and that, despite orders made after a case management hearing on 26 April 2023, the claimant did not provide the Further and Better Particulars requested. The tribunal therefore struck out the disability discrimination claim under Rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with tribunal orders. It also held, under Rule 37(1)(a), that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had not provided fair notice of the legal and factual basis of the complaint or explained the link between the alleged treatment and his disability.

On the merits of the limited case it could discern, the tribunal found no proper basis for a reasonable adjustments complaint and noted that there is no stand-alone duty simply to consult about adjustments. It also addressed the claimant’s position that he had been dismissed, rather than resigned, and concluded that the 2 November 2022 email, stating that he would like to make his last day 8 December 2023, could reasonably be read by the respondent as a resignation. The tribunal described the dismissal case as inherently implausible on the undisputed documents and said that this reinforced its conclusion that the discrimination claim was bound to fail.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 was struck out on the same two grounds. The tribunal found that the claimant had not complied with orders to identify the protected disclosure, the detriment, or the causal link between the disclosure and any detriment. It also held that the 2 November 2022 email did not appear to be a qualifying protected disclosure within s.43B ERA 1996, reading instead as a friendly email about training and pay rather than an allegation of wrongdoing. No award was made, because both claims were struck out.