ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4102011/2022 Hearing at Edinburgh on 20, 21, 22, and March 2023, and and August 2023; and Members’ Meetings on September and October 2023 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: L Grime Tribunal Member: S Cardownie Santiago Cubillo v GL Attractions Ltd — 2023

Santiago Cubillo worked for GL Attractions Ltd as a Sales Assistant at the Tartan Weaving Mill from August 2019. The dispute arose from complaints in September 2021 that colleagues F, S and M were saying he had made sexist remarks. The respondent arranged an informal meeting on 9 September 2021 and later produced an informal meeting conclusion signed by the claimant, F, S and M on 6 October 2021. The claimant then raised further grievances in November and December 2021 and in January 2022, and he was moved from the Tartan Weaving Mill while the matter was being investigated.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's handling of the grievance only in one respect. It found that the respondent did not act in breach by delaying some grievance steps while the claimant was on sick leave, and it accepted that the initial delay in responding to the 19 November 2021 grievance was not shown to be deliberate. The decisive breach was the respondent's failure, after the grievance outcome had substantially upheld the claimant's complaints, to take prompt steps to return him to the Tartan Weaving Mill. The tribunal held that this failure contradicted the grievance outcome, undermined trust and confidence, and contributed to the claimant's resignation on 8 April 2022. Constructive unfair dismissal therefore succeeded.

The age discrimination and age harassment claims were dismissed. The tribunal held that the incidents relied on were not shown to be treatment by the respondent because of age, and that much of the dispute concerned allegations that the claimant had made sexist remarks. It found no basis for the contention that Mr Singh treated the claimant less favourably because of age, or that the conduct complained of amounted to harassment related to age. Because those claims failed on the merits, the tribunal did not determine the age time-bar issue.

The victimisation claim also failed. The tribunal held that only the grievance of 22 December 2021, in which the claimant complained of different treatment because of age, amounted to a protected act under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. Earlier complaints were not protected acts for this purpose. The alleged detriments either predated the protected act, were not accepted as detriments, or were not found to have been caused by it. No injury to feelings award was made. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £658.70 and compensation for loss of earnings, pension loss and loss of employment rights, and ordered payment of £4,748.44 in total.