D McFarlane and P McColl Ms A v Represented by Mr B - Father Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board — 2023

The claimant had been employed by the respondent since 27 January 1997 and had transferred on 4 December 2012 on her pre-transfer terms and conditions. She was absent from work from 2 November 2022 following a physical workplace injury. The respondent conceded that she was disabled for Equality Act 2010 purposes. The tribunal held that the reasonable-adjustments complaints were presented in time, but the separate TUPE consultation point raised in the schedule of loss was not part of the agreed issues and was in any event substantially out of time, so it was not determined.

At the first attendance meeting on 10 February 2023, the claimant wanted her father to attend but was told she could be accompanied by a colleague or trade union representative and chose a colleague. The tribunal accepted that a wide PCP of failing to take disability into account when arranging the meeting had been applied, but found no substantial disadvantage because the claimant had already said she did not feel safe discussing her mental health with Mr Cast and had made clear that the meeting was about her workplace injury. The complaint about the first meeting was therefore dismissed.

At the second attendance meeting on 11 May 2023, the claimant said the meeting should have been recorded. The tribunal found that no PCP of failing to take disability into account when arranging the meeting had been shown to have been applied: the problem was that the recording arrangement had not been passed on, and the claimant was offered the chance to postpone but chose to proceed without recording. On pay, the tribunal found that the claimant moved to half pay on 20 April 2023 after six months' absence, but rejected the claimed disadvantage because her absence was due to a physical workplace injury rather than her mental health condition and she had not proved a contractual entitlement to longer full pay.

The tribunal also accepted that one absence-type entry had initially been recorded as sick leave in the electronic system, but found that the workplace injury box had been ticked from the outset and that the entry was later corrected to work related injury or similar. It held that this did not cause the disadvantage alleged and did not alter the claimant's pay position, since she would have moved to half pay in any event. The unlawful deduction from wages complaint was not insisted upon at the hearing and was dismissed. The claimant later succeeded in an Injury Allowance application, which backdated her pay to 85% of full pay from 20 April 2023, but no tribunal award was made because all live claims failed.