Case 4102895/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr Gallacher & Ms Paton Ms B Tierney v Represented by: Mr G Tierney – Private Individual South Ayrshire Council — 2023

Case reference: 4102895/2022
Decision date: 10 November 2023
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judge: Employment Judge L Doherty Members
Venue: Glasgow
Panel members: Mr Gallacher, Ms Paton

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr Gallacher & Ms Paton Ms B Tierney

Respondent

Represented by: Mr G Tierney – Private Individual South Ayrshire Council

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Ms B Tierney, brought claims of direct sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, and victimisation arising from events after a grievance she raised in May 2021 about a male colleague, A. The tribunal found that the grievance was handled promptly, was upheld in part, and resulted in an agreement that she would not have to work with A on a 1:1 basis. It also found that a note recording the grievance outcome was placed on A's personnel file and that the grievance was not appealed.

The direct sex discrimination complaint concerned a Band 7 Communities Officer post advertised on 1 February 2021 and interviewed for on 24 February 2022. The tribunal accepted that A and the claimant were both interviewed, that the claimant performed well, but that A performed better, scored 20 out of 20, and was already a Band 7 post-holder with more experience. It found that the interview panel's decision was based on the candidates' performance and that A's appointment was not less favourable treatment of the claimant because of sex. It also found there was no material difference in the relevant circumstances and that the existing arrangements to keep the claimant and A apart on a 1:1 basis would have remained in place.

The harassment claim failed because the alleged April 2022 comment that the claimant's complaints were 'trumped up' was not proved, and there was no evidence that the respondent itself engaged in unwanted conduct related to sex. The tribunal also rejected the submission that the appointment of A over the claimant could amount to harassment. The victimisation claim failed because, although the claimant had done a protected act by lodging a grievance, there was no evidence that the respondent treated her as a troublemaker or subjected her to a detriment for that reason. The tribunal held that the interview panel was not meant to see internal personnel files, that the panel's role was to assess skills and experience, and that removing a panel member who had expressed a prejudicial view was appropriate.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Sex discrimination	The tribunal found that the successful candidate, A, was already a Band 7 post-holder and had more work experience than the claimant. It accepted that A scored higher at interview and that this explained the appointment, so the claimant was not treated less favourably because of sex.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Harassment	The alleged April 2022 incident that a colleague had suggested the claimant's complaints were 'trumped up' was not proved. The tribunal also rejected the argument that A's appointment or the handling of the grievance amounted to unwanted conduct related to sex.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Victimisation	The tribunal accepted that the claimant had done a protected act by raising a grievance in May 2021, but found no evidence that the respondent regarded her as a troublemaker or that the interview process subjected her to a detriment because of the grievance. It also found that the grievance outcome had been placed on A's file.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 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.