Case 4104083/2022 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104083/20225 Held at Aberdeen on 18, 19, & September 2023 Employment Judge J M Hendry Members D Massie D McDougall Mr J Grassie v Represented by In Person Grampian Health Board — 2023
- Case reference
- 4104083/2022
- Decision date
- 3 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
- Panel members
- D Massie, D McDougall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4104083/20225 Held at Aberdeen on 18, 19, & September 2023 Employment Judge J M Hendry Members D Massie D McDougall Mr J Grassie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim. The written judgment states that the claim was not well-founded, following reasons given orally at the hearing held on 18, 19, 20 and 21 September 2023.
The tribunal also dismissed the disability discrimination claims. These were pleaded as alleged failures to make reasonable adjustments in relation to afternoon working and monitoring absence management. The tribunal held that those claims were both time-barred and not well-founded.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claims concerned an alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to afternoon working and monitoring absence management. The tribunal said these were both time-barred and not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.
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.