Tribunal Member Ijaz Ashraf Tribunal Member Vernon P Alexander Ms Muawana McCollin v Supported by: Ms Marigold Ahomade Telecom Service Centres Ltd t/a Webhelp UK — 2022

The claimant worked for the respondents as a Customer Service Representative from 14 May 2018 until she was summarily dismissed on 11 July 2019 for gross misconduct arising from concerns about calls she had terminated early. The tribunal heard evidence about the investigation on 4 July 2019, the conduct hearing on 11 July 2019, and the appeal hearing on 8 August 2019, and it accepted the respondents' evidence that their notes of those meetings were generally accurate. It also recorded that the claimant had raised health issues during employment, including carpal tunnel syndrome, anaemia, fibroids, fatigue, back pain and dry eyes, and that some adjustments had been discussed with her line manager.

On time limits, the tribunal dismissed the notice-pay claim as time-barred under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994 and found that, even if it had not been out of time, no notice pay would have been due after a summary dismissal for gross misconduct. For the Equality Act claims, it allowed the discrimination heads that were out of time to proceed on the basis that it was just and equitable to extend time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010. It also held that the claimant was disabled within section 6 by reason of carpal tunnel syndrome, anaemia and fibroids, but not on the basis of back pain or dry eyes.

The direct race discrimination claim failed. The tribunal accepted that the respondent investigated and disciplined the claimant for terminating calls, but found no evidence that this was because of her Afro-Caribbean ethnicity. It accepted the respondent's evidence that Nathan was not an appropriate comparator and held that the claimant had not shown facts from which race discrimination could be inferred.

The direct disability discrimination claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was disabled, but found no less favourable treatment because of disability in the investigation, disciplinary process, dismissal, appeal process, or the questions asked at the appeal hearing. It found that the respondent's case was that the claimant was dealt with for conduct, namely call avoidance, and that the claimant had not discharged the burden of proof to show otherwise.

The section 15 claim for discrimination arising from disability was dismissed on the basis that, although the respondent knew of the claimant's disability and the dismissal and appeal outcome were unfavourable treatment, the tribunal found those decisions were based on the claimant's conduct rather than something arising in consequence of disability. The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal found the PCP alleged by the claimant, namely the expectation to work shifts between 7:30am and 11:30pm, was not applied to her in practice, and it was not persuaded that the adjustments she sought were made out on the evidence.