Case 4101982/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms P Jones v Of Housing Associations — 2020

Case reference: 4101982/2020
Decision date: 7 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge S. Walker

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms P Jones

Respondent

Of Housing Associations

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing in a case brought for unfair dismissal and religion and belief discrimination. On the unfair dismissal issue, the tribunal did not make findings of fact about why the claimant was dismissed. It took the claimant's case at its highest and held that, if she was dismissed because she had sought permission to stand in a General Election and that permission was refused because of the respondent's policy of political neutrality, that would be a reason that relates to political opinions or affiliations for the purposes of section 108(4) ERA 1996. The tribunal therefore held that she could pursue the unfair dismissal claim without two years' service, but said that a later tribunal would still have to decide what the actual reason for dismissal was and, if necessary, consider section 98(4).

On the discrimination issue, the tribunal found that the claimant had a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010. The belief was identified as that those with the relevant skills, ability and passion should participate in the democratic process at whatever level is appropriate to those skills and abilities. Applying Grainger, the tribunal accepted that the belief was genuinely held, related to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour, and had the necessary cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. It held that the discrimination claim could proceed, but did not determine liability.

The tribunal also ruled on a third preliminary issue about an email of 16 October 2019 from Law at Work containing legal advice. It found that the respondent had not waived legal advice privilege, but held that the document had already been provided to the claimant in response to a Subject Access Request and the question was one of admissibility under the tribunal's own procedure. Balancing relevance, privilege, and the overriding objective, it ordered that the claimant may not produce the email in the proceedings, although she would not need to 'unsee' it and could question witnesses about the underlying matters.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Preliminary issue only. Taking the claimant's case at its highest and making no findings of fact, the tribunal held that if she was dismissed because she sought permission to stand in a General Election and that refusal was because of the respondent's political neutrality policy, that reason would relate to political opinions or affiliations within section 108(4) ERA 1996. The claimant could therefore proceed with her unfair dismissal claim without two years' service, but the true reason for dismissal was left to the final hearing.	Other	—	—
Religion or belief discrimination	Preliminary issue only. The tribunal held that the claimant had a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010, namely that those with the relevant skills, ability and passion should participate in the democratic process at whatever level is appropriate to those skills and abilities. It found the belief genuine, serious, cogent and cohesive under Grainger, so the discrimination claim could proceed, but no liability finding was made.	Other	Religion or belief	—

Legal tests applied

7 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.