Mr C Douglas v No appearance and No representation Scottish Fire and Rescue Service — 2023

The claimant did not attend the 31 March 2023 hearing. The tribunal had previously asked him, by correspondence sent after initial consideration, to explain the legal basis of his claim. No written representations were received, and no explanation was provided for his absence. The hearing therefore proceeded in his absence under Rule 47, with the respondent represented.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's submission that the claim should be dismissed under Rule 12, holding that Rule 12 applies before service and that this claim had already been served. It then considered the ET1, the later handwritten note said to have been received from the claimant, and the respondent's ET3. The handwritten note referred to discrimination, bullying and harassment, and to victimisation, but it did not identify any protected characteristic. The tribunal noted that the ET1 mentioned health difficulties in box 8.2, but the claimant had not indicated that he was bringing a disability discrimination claim or any other claim based on a protected characteristic.

The tribunal held that claims of discrimination, bullying and harassment are only within the tribunal's jurisdiction where the alleged unlawful acts relate to one or more protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. It considered the claimant's failure to respond to the tribunal's correspondence asking him to identify the legal basis of the claim to be significant. It also took account of the respondent's ET3 and the absence of any indication that the claimant was disputing the respondent's position that he was medically fit for work.

Applying Rule 27 and the overriding objective, and with reference to Uwhubetine, Minnoch and Tayside Public Transport, the tribunal concluded that the entire claim had no jurisdictional basis. It therefore dismissed the whole claim and permitted no part to proceed.