Case 4104213/2016 · Employment Tribunal
: Mr GD Buchanan Ms M Watt Mr Martin Alexander v Student Awards Agency for Scotland — 2017
- Case reference
- 4104213/2016
- Decision date
- 16 March 2017
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge Members
- Venue
- Edinburgh
- Panel members
- Mr GD Buchanan, Ms M Watt
Parties
2 namedClaimant
: Mr GD Buchanan Ms M Watt Mr Martin Alexander
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who had been supplied by Pertemps to the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, alleged that he had been directly discriminated against on grounds of sex during a telephone call on 8 April 2016 with Fiona Wherret of the Baseline Security Team. The respondent argued that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the alleged act happened before the assignment started; the tribunal considered that issue first.
The tribunal held that Equality Act 2010 s.41 applied to the principal and contract-worker relationship in this framework-agreement setting, and that it therefore had jurisdiction to hear the complaint. It also referred to London Borough of Camden v Pegg & others and said that, if the domestic provision were ambiguous, it should be read consistently with the EU Equal Treatment Directive 2006/54/EC.
On the evidence, the tribunal preferred the accounts of Ms Wherret, Mr McIver and Ms McConnell to the claimant's account. It found that Ms Wherret had asked for further details of the claimant's conviction so that the respondent could assess risk to colleagues, and had not pressed him for intrusive details of abuse or said that she would not ask the same questions of a woman. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been upset by the call, but did not find the remarks he alleged.
Because there were no primary facts from which an inference of sex discrimination could be drawn, the claim failed and was dismissed. The tribunal also noted that the later termination of the assignment on 3 May 2016 was explained by attendance and conduct concerns in Kieran O'Connor's email and was not shown to involve unlawful discrimination. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim arising from the telephone conversation with Fiona Wherret during pre-assignment vetting; the respondent raised a jurisdictional challenge under Equality Act 2010 s.41, which the tribunal rejected. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Equality Act 2010 s.41
- London Borough of Camden v Pegg & others UKEAT/0590/11/LA
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.