Case 4110830/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C M MacDonald v Glen Moray Distillery Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4110830/2019
- Decision date
- 20 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Hendry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C M MacDonald
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked at Glen Moray Distillery from around 2001 and was employed full time from 19 May 2004 until 24 June 2015. He alleged that he had been bullied at work, including crude comments and gestures referring to homosexuality, and that he resigned by letter dated 15 April 2015 after a period of sickness absence beginning on 31 October 2014. The proceedings were not raised until 11 September 2019, and the hearing before Employment Judge J Hendry was concerned only with jurisdiction and time limits.
For the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the two-stage reasonably practicable test. It found that the claimant had some awareness of possible tribunal proceedings and had several opportunities to investigate them: he had sought union advice, spoken to solicitors about other matters, obtained his GP records in August 2015, had access to the internet, and knew that his father had previously brought tribunal proceedings against the same employer. Although the tribunal accepted that he had suffered anxiety and depression over a long period, it was not persuaded that his health made it not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time.
For the harassment claim under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal applied the just and equitable test in section 123. It recorded that, in cross-examination, the claimant accepted that the last possible incident of harassment while at work must have been in July 2014, so the claim was already long out of time when the ET1 was lodged in September 2019. The tribunal accepted that mental illness may have delayed action for periods, but refused to extend time because of the age of the allegations, the fact that several relevant witnesses, including the alleged principal perpetrator, had left the respondents' employment, and the likelihood that recollection would have faded.
The tribunal therefore refused both extensions of time and struck out the claims for want of jurisdiction. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment's heading described the matter as unfairly (constructively) dismissed. The tribunal refused the time extension under section 111 ERA 1996 and the claim was struck out for lack of jurisdiction; the reasons also state that both claims would be dismissed. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | Harassment was pleaded under section 26 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal refused to extend time under the just and equitable test in section 123 Equality Act 2010 and struck the claim out; the reasons also state that both claims would be dismissed. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- reasonably practicable test
- just and equitable test
- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
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.