Case 4112547/2018 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4112547/2018 Held in Glasgow on February 2019 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Miss Hailey MacKenzie v Represented by: Ms L Neil - Solicitor N&C Building Products Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 4112547/2018
- Decision date
- 6 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sandy Meiklejohn
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4112547/2018 Held in Glasgow on February 2019 Employment Judge: W A Meiklejohn Miss Hailey MacKenzie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 7 February 2019, the claimant's representative confirmed that the unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn because the claimant did not have the required qualifying service. The tribunal therefore dismissed that claim.
At the same hearing, the representative confirmed that the protected characteristic for the discrimination claim was sex and not, as stated in the ET1, sexual orientation. The judgment records that the claim was dismissed in so far as it related to sexual orientation. No monetary award or other remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | At the preliminary hearing on 7 February 2019, the claimant's representative confirmed that the unfair dismissal claim was withdrawn because the claimant did not have the required qualifying service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | At the same preliminary hearing, the claimant's representative confirmed that the protected characteristic for the claim was sex and not, as stated in the ET1, sexual orientation. The judgment records that the claim was dismissed in so far as it related to sexual orientation. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
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.