Mr R Drewniaczyk v The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Scotland — 2026

Mr R Drewniaczyk was a probationary police constable appointed on 17 December 2018 and discharged on 14 July 2023. The respondent admitted that he was disabled by dyslexia and ADHD, with knowledge of dyslexia from 22 February 2022 and ADHD from 27 July 2022. The tribunal found that the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of those disabilities during the 2021 allegations, and that the 2021 discrimination arising from disability complaints would not have succeeded on their merits. Some 2021 harassment allegations were not established factually, and others were found not to have had the purpose or reasonable effect required by section 26 Equality Act 2010.

For the 2022 allegations, the tribunal found that the complaints about being deterred from Alcoholics Anonymous, being pressured to take a breathalyser test, and bottles being taken for drug testing were not established on the evidence. On reasonable adjustments, the tribunal found that the respondent had a PCP requiring officers to provide written reports of a suitable standard and that, during the 2022 period at Loreburn Street Station, this put the claimant at substantial disadvantages in concentrating on written work and processing information to compile reports. If jurisdiction had existed, the tribunal would have found failures to provide access to a quiet location for difficult written tasks, agree a pattern of short frequent breaks, and provide mind-mapping software. Those complaints were nevertheless dismissed because they were out of time.

For the 2023 period at Dumfries HQ, the tribunal found that text-based report writing was not a material component of the claimant's duties, that he was working in a quiet environment, and that he was not under material time pressure. The reasonable-adjustments complaints for that period were not established. Complaints about failing to discuss occupational-health advice before 12 May 2023 and holding the 12 May 2023 meeting without offering representation were also dismissed: the section 15 causation requirement was not made out, and the section 26 requirements as to purpose or effect were not met.

The tribunal found that the recommendation to discharge the claimant and the Chief Constable's acceptance of that recommendation were unfavourable treatment related to disability, because communication difficulties had some influence on the reasoning. However, it found the decision was a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims, including ensuring operational police officers were fit for service and could provide safe and efficient service. The corresponding harassment complaint also failed because the tribunal found no proscribed purpose and no objectively reasonable proscribed effect. The alleged failure to carry out a post-discharge welfare check was not established because RM contacted the claimant on 15 July 2023 to enquire after his wellbeing.