Case 4105098/2020 · Employment Tribunal
member: N Bakshi Tribunal member: N Elliot Mr M Cowie v Mr D Gray Instructed by Messrs Thompsons Mr M Cahill Mr P O’Hare Mr D Harkins Mr H Young Ms S Hodge Ms L Campbell Ms M Kirkland Ms M Cassidy Ms K A McCrone Case No.: 4105098/2020 & Others Page Scottish Fire and Rescue Service — 2021
- Case reference
- 4105098/2020
- Decision date
- 1 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Hoey Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- N Bakshi, N Elliot
Parties
2 namedClaimant
member: N Bakshi Tribunal member: N Elliot Mr M Cowie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered two grouped claims arising from the respondent's COVID-19 special leave arrangements: a section 15 Equality Act 2010 disability discrimination claim and an indirect sex discrimination claim under section 19. It found that the disability claim succeeded for the claimants who were required to use accrued TOIL and annual leave before paid special leave. The tribunal held that this amounted to unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability and that the respondent had not shown the treatment to be justified.
On the sex discrimination claim, the tribunal held that the claim failed at the group disadvantage stage. Although the claimants argued that women were more likely to be disadvantaged because they were more likely to have childcare responsibilities, the tribunal was not persuaded that, on the evidence before it, women were more likely than men to need to rely on the special leave policy and use TOIL or annual leave first. It therefore found the indirect sex discrimination claim ill founded and dismissed it.
Remedy was dealt with on the evidence available at the liability hearing. The tribunal had no wage or financial information that would allow it to quantify a compensatory award. It found that Mr Cowie's evidence did not show compensable injury to feelings from the discriminatory treatment itself, and it was not prepared to infer injury to feelings for the remaining claimants who did not give evidence. It concluded that it was not just and equitable to award any compensation to any claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The section 15 claim succeeded for the group of claimants who challenged the respondent's requirement that they use accrued TOIL and annual leave before paid special leave. The tribunal found unfavourable treatment by removal of choice and flexibility with TOIL and accrued leave, held that it arose in consequence of disability, and rejected justification. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The indirect sex discrimination claim failed. The tribunal held that the PCP of requiring annual leave and TOIL to be used before special leave did not, on the evidence before it, place women at a particular disadvantage compared with men, so the section 19 claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- section 19 Equality Act 2010
- Dobson
- Taylor v XLN Telecom Ltd 2010 IRLR 499
- Moyhing v Barts and London NHS Trust 2006 IRLR 860
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.