Member Ms Hossack Tribunal Member Mr Atkinson Mrs T MacLean v Kura — 2021

The claimant worked for the respondent's Forres call centre from 2013 and, after starting to work from home in March 2020, had difficulty with cash collection following training on the new UI5 system. The tribunal found that Scottish Power focused on missed opportunities and identified the claimant as the lowest performer, then asked the respondent to remove her from the contract. The respondent began a disciplinary process in June 2020 and dismissed her on 2 July 2020 with immediate effect.

The direct race and sex discrimination claims were dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was of Thai national origin and identified as an Asian woman, but found no evidence that the relevant treatment was because of race or sex. It held that the claimant received the same training session as colleagues, that Mr McLennan's failure to understand her 'system issue' was a misunderstanding rather than discriminatory treatment, and that several earlier allegations were out of time under s.123 EqA 2010 or were unsupported. It also found that procedural problems such as missing papers and confusion over misconduct and gross misconduct were not shown to be linked to race or sex.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal found that the claimant's statement on 2 July 2020 that it was 'like I trick on them to get the money, even I know it’s wrong' amounted to a protected disclosure because it raised potential unlawful overcharging in the public interest. Other relied-upon comments did not amount to qualifying disclosures, and one email was not received by the intended recipient. The tribunal concluded that the dismissal had already been decided because Scottish Power had instructed the respondent to remove the claimant before the disciplinary meeting, so the s.103A claim failed.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded under s.98 ERA 1996. The tribunal held that the stated reason was some other substantial reason connected to Scottish Power's instruction, but it was not reasonable for the respondent to treat that instruction as sufficient without challenging it, supporting the claimant, or properly investigating the user issue behind her performance after home working. The dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses, contribution was rejected, no reduction was made for failure to appeal, and a 25% uplift was applied for breach of the ACAS Code. The tribunal awarded a basic award of £4,110.66 and a compensatory award capped at £23,750.64, producing a total award of £27,861.30.