Case 4107433/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Member Mrs P McColl Tribunal Member Mr D Frew Mrs Allison Shearer v South Lanarkshire Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 4107433/2023
- Decision date
- 31 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Mrs P McColl, Mr D Frew
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member Mrs P McColl Tribunal Member Mr D Frew Mrs Allison Shearer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed for capability after a period of sickness absence linked to the respondent's requirement that she move from Clydesdale Support Base to Kear Secondary School. The respondent conceded disability from 17 June 2022 to dismissal, knowledge from 15 May 2023, that the requirement to work at Kear Secondary School was a PCP, and that it placed the claimant at a substantial disadvantage.
The tribunal found that allowing the claimant to continue or resume working at Clydesdale Support Base would have been a reasonable adjustment. It found that the disadvantage was closely linked to the proposed move, that Occupational Health evidence supported that link, and that the respondent had not shown financial or operational reasons making the adjustment unreasonable. It also found that a reasonable search for alternative roles would probably have produced suitable work, and that the two posts offered at the final capability hearing were not suitable alternatives in the circumstances.
The tribunal held that dismissal was not a proportionate means of achieving the respondent's legitimate aims because less detrimental measures, including return to Clydesdale or a reasonable search for alternative employment, could have served those aims. It also held that no reasonable employer would have insisted on the Kear placement or dismissed without a reasonable alternative-employment search, so the unfair dismissal complaint succeeded. The tribunal rejected the allegation that the move to Kear was a punishment for refusing to supervise vaping.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal upheld disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability. The award for discrimination comprised financial losses, pension loss, injury to feelings, and interest, before grossing up. | Upheld | Disability | £41,928 |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal remedy comprised a basic award of £18,647 and a compensatory award limited to £500 for loss of statutory rights. | Upheld | — | £19,147 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £61,075
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £18,647
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £500
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
30 references- s.98(2)(a) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- range of reasonable responses
- UCATT v Brain
- Devis v Atkins
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Foley v Post Office
- J Sainsbury plc v Hitt
- O'Brien v Bolton St Catherine's Academy
- West Midlands Co-operative Society Ltd v Tipton
- Spencer v Paragon Wallpapers Ltd
- S v Dundee City Council
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Steen v ASP Packaging Ltd
- Nelson v BBC (No.2)
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Hill v Governing Body of Great Tey Primary School
- Gover v Propertycare Ltd
- Thornett v Scope
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- Contract Bottling Ltd v Cave
- s.20(3) EqA 2010
- Project Management v Latif
- Smith v Churchills Stairlifts plc
- Archibald v Fife Council
- Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice paragraph 6.23
- Cordell v FCO
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v Fowler TeX logo version ICR ICR Griffiths v SSWP s.15(1)(b) EqA 2010 Hampson v DES Homer Seldon
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.