: M Taylor D Calderwood Ms Johan MacIver v Sandyford Surgery — 2021

The claimant started work on 16 March 2020 as a relief medical receptionist at Sandyford Surgery and was dismissed with effect from 30 March 2020. The tribunal found that, because of the onset of COVID-19, the claimant had not been trained on the EMIS system and could not work effectively without that training. It accepted the respondent's evidence that social distancing and the pressures on the practice made training impracticable, and that by 25 March 2020, or at latest by the rota planning on 26 March 2020, the practice manager had already decided that the claimant could not be accommodated in the new staffing arrangements.

On 27 March 2020 the claimant emailed asking whether everyone in the practice was social distancing, then said she was especially worried about bringing the virus home to her pregnant daughter. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that these emails, and the daughter's pregnancy, did not form part of the dismissal decision. It found that the reference to "the circumstances" in the 30 March telephone call referred to the COVID-19 situation and its impact on the practice, not to the daughter's pregnancy. The dismissal email referred to the "ongoing and unprecedented Covid-19 situation" impacting the practice's workings.

Applying s.136 Equality Act 2010 and the Barton/Igen burden-of-proof approach, the tribunal found the respondent's witnesses credible and reliable and held that the claimant had not proved facts from which discrimination could be inferred. It accepted that the reason for dismissal was the impracticability of training the claimant, her inability to contribute without that training, and the lack of suitable work in the pandemic conditions. The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and both direct discrimination claims. No tribunal award was made; the respondent's payment of salary to 30 April 2020 was recorded as a goodwill payment rather than compensation.