Case 4122214/2018 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4122214/2018 Hearing at Inverness on 12, and November 2019 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: K A Murray Tribunal Member: F Parr Paige Busby v Represented by Ms K Dingwall Solicitor Highland Aviation Training Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 4122214/2018
- Decision date
- 14 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo Macleod
- Panel members
- K A Murray, F Parr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4122214/2018 Hearing at Inverness on 12, and November 2019 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: K A Murray Tribunal Member: F Parr Paige Busby
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Inverness on 12 to 14 November 2019, the tribunal heard claims arising from the claimant's dismissal from Highland Aviation Training Ltd on 8 August 2018. The claimant had started work on 1 March 2018, had her probation extended, and on 3 August said she was struggling with workload. After an exchange about leave for 5 to 8 August, she took a flight to Bristol, was absent on 4 to 8 August, and was dismissed for breach of trust and gross misconduct on the basis that she had taken unauthorised holiday while claiming sick leave.
The tribunal preferred Mr Roomes' evidence on the main factual disputes. It found the claimant did not tell the respondent at interview or during employment that she suffered from depression and anxiety, and rejected her case that Mr Roomes had agreed cover for 5 to 8 August. It found the claimant's absence was unauthorised and that the respondent was entitled to conclude she had been dishonest. The tribunal also held that a hypothetical non-disabled comparator would have been treated in the same way.
The disability discrimination claims under sections 13, 15, 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 and the harassment claim under section 26 all failed. The tribunal held that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the claimant had a disability; that the pleaded PCP for the reasonable adjustments claim was not made out and in any event the dismissal was for unauthorised absence rather than sickness absence; and that the alleged harassment incidents, including the medication box allegation, the 3 August conversation, and the reference to holiday, were not proved or did not amount to harassment. On the third day of the hearing, the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim and the respondent's employer contract claim were treated as withdrawn and dismissed by agreement. No remedy arose because all claims failed or were withdrawn.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant alleged that dismissal on 8 August 2018 was because of disability. The tribunal preferred Mr Roomes' evidence that she did not tell the respondent at interview or during employment that she suffered from depression and anxiety, and found the dismissal was for unauthorised absence and dishonesty rather than because of disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant accepted that the respondent treated her unfavourably by dismissing her, but the tribunal found the reason was gross misconduct arising from unauthorised absence, not something arising in consequence of disability. It also found the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that she had a disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant relied on a PCP of dismissing an employee for sickness absence and said the respondent should have provided more support and taken account of her disability. The tribunal held the respondent did not know of any disability, found the pleaded PCP was not made out and in any event she was dismissed for four days' unauthorised absence rather than two days' sickness absence, and found no substantial disadvantage was established. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The claimant alleged harassment from comments about medication, remarks made on 3 August 2018, and references to her absence as a holiday. The tribunal found the key allegations were not proved, some matters had not been properly put in evidence, and the remarks did not amount to harassment related to disability. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.20(3) Equality Act 2010
- s.21 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 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.