EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107696/2019 (V) Held via Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on 12, and October 2020 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: J Anderson Tribunal Member: A Grant Mrs P Devine v Represented by Mr R Clarke - Solicitor Ferrari Packaging Limited — 2021

The claimant worked as a sales co-ordinator from 6 August 2018. The tribunal accepted that her daughter, Jodie, was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, and that the claimant took time off in connection with Jodie's illness between 2 April and 29 April 2019. It found that Ms Morrison's texts and workplace conduct remained supportive throughout, that the claimant did not hand over the Paediatric Liver Service letter on 16 April 2019, and that allegations of hostile questioning or ostracism were not proved.

The tribunal preferred Ms Morrison's account of the meeting on 2 May 2019. It found that the meeting about the Booksource order was informal, that the claimant said things were not working out and that she wanted to resign with immediate effect, and that Mr Ferrari then treated her as having resigned from that date. The later email of 9 May and the fit note sent on 7 May did not displace that finding.

On the disability discrimination issues, the tribunal accepted that the respondent ought reasonably to have known by 11 April 2019 that Jodie had a disability, but it found no act of less favourable treatment because of that disability. It held that the dismissal-based allegations failed because the claimant had not been dismissed, and that there was no evidential basis to infer discrimination from the respondent's conduct. The discrimination claim was therefore dismissed.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant exercised her statutory right to take time off for dependants on eight occasions, but it found no termination by the respondent and no causal link between that time off and the end of employment. It therefore dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.99(3)(d) ERA 1996. Because both claims failed, the tribunal did not assess remedy.