Case 4106421/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M McGill v Greater Glasgow Health Board — 2025
- Case reference
- 4106421/2024
- Decision date
- 13 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M McGill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, unauthorised deductions from final wages, and failure to pay full accrued annual leave entitlement. The respondent denied the claims and took the preliminary point that they were time barred. The tribunal treated the effective date of termination as 1 September 2023 and found that early conciliation began on 19 October 2023 and ended on 30 November 2023, but the ET1 was not presented until 7 August 2024.
For the unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions and holiday pay claims, the tribunal found that the claims were about seven months late. It found there was nothing before it to show that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claims in time. The tribunal found the delay arose from a breakdown in communication between the claimant and his union, but that did not prevent the union representative or the claimant from presenting a claim within the original time limit. It also found that, even if the first stage had been met, the claims were not presented within a reasonable time after the expiry of the original time limit.
For the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal gave the claimant the benefit of treating the alleged discriminatory treatment as continuing until dismissal, but still found the claim to be about seven months late. Considering the length and reason for the delay, the age and specification of the allegations, the likely effect on evidence, and the prejudice to both parties, the tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to hear any of the claims and dismissed them.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claim was time barred and it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time; in any event it was not presented within a reasonable time thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the disability discrimination claim was time barred and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as unauthorised deductions in relation to final wages paid in June 2023. Dismissed because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claim was time barred and it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time; in any event it was not presented within a reasonable time thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as failure to pay the claimant's full accrued annual leave entitlement on termination. Dismissed because the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction: the claim was time barred and it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time; in any event it was not presented within a reasonable time thereafter. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- regulation 30(2) Working Time Regulations
- section 23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111(2)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 123(1)(a) Equality Act
- reasonably practicable
- reasonable time thereafter
- just and equitable
- British Coal Board v Keeble
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust [2021] EWCA Civ 23
- Robertson v Bexleyheath Community Council
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.