Ms L Edgar v Represented by: Mr R Clark - Solicitor Scottish Water — 2025

Ms L Edgar brought a victimisation claim against Scottish Water arising from her equal pay proceedings and later grievance. The tribunal identified the protected acts as the equal pay claim and the grievance of 14 March 2023, and it considered alleged detriments said to consist of Ms Reid ignoring or ostracising the claimant, being curt or failing to acknowledge her, and the 29 March 2023 conversation in which Ms Reid was said to have spoken aggressively and accused the claimant of lying. It heard from the claimant, Ms Reid, Ms McArthur, Mr Bingham and Ms Boyce, and assessed the evidence in the context of a small team whose dynamics had been affected by the tribunal proceedings.

The tribunal found that the claimant had taken notes of workplace interactions because she believed she was being victimised, but those notes were not shared at the time and reflected her own perception of events. It preferred Ms Reid's evidence, supported by the other witnesses, that she had remained professional, that the claimant had not been ignored or ostracised, and that any perceived slights were more likely to have been innocuous explanations such as not hearing the claimant or being occupied with work. The tribunal also rejected the allegation that Ms Reid had been curt or had failed to acknowledge the claimant in the relied-upon meetings.

On the 29 March 2023 conversation, the tribunal found that Ms Reid did say, in essence, that the claimant would be a liar if she maintained her position. It held that this was a detriment, because being called a liar in a workplace discussion would reasonably be regarded as disadvantageous. However, it found that neither protected act had a significant influence on that comment: Ms Reid's reason was her belief that the claimant's account was untrue, not the fact that the claimant had brought the equal pay claim or raised a grievance. As the other alleged detriments were not established, and the one detriment found was not because of a protected act, the claim was dismissed.