Members: R McPherson G Mackay Mr Richard Bell v Represented by: Mr K McGuire Counsel Dumfries and Galloway Council — 2022

The claimant originally advanced age discrimination and trade union detriment complaints, but the age discrimination complaints were withdrawn. The remaining case was a section 146 TULRCA complaint about four alleged detriments: non-appointment to the Principal Teacher (Social Subjects) post in June 2018, no geography classes in May 2019, being required to vacate his geography classroom in May 2019, and receiving fewer geography classes in June 2019. The tribunal applied section 146 and section 148 TULRCA, referred to Yewdall v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the structure of a section 146 claim, and accepted that detriment should be understood by reference to the authorities cited on that point, including Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah and Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

On the interview claim, the tribunal found that the respondent was seeking to appoint the best candidate for the Principal Teacher post and that the claimant had not established a prima facie case that the decision was taken to penalise him for trade union activity. It accepted that four candidates were interviewed, that the interview panel included Mr James Smith, Ms Lorraine Gillies, Ms Mary Aitchison and Mr Simon Meane, and that the candidate record sheets and feedback process were part of the recruitment exercise. The tribunal did not accept that confusion about the then-applicable appointments procedure, the use of a presentation, split scores, or the absence of separate notes of the panel discussion justified an adverse inference. It found that Mr Graham Prentice scored higher than the claimant, with 113 points to 99, and that even on an alternative split-score calculation Mr Prentice would still have been ahead.

For the 2019 complaints, the tribunal accepted that the geography department had surplus capacity, that the claimant was identified for redeployment under the respondent's policy after he and Mr Henderson declined to volunteer, and that teachers to be redeployed were not timetabled for classes. It found that the classroom move and the later reduction in classes were driven by continuity for pupils, avoidance of split classes and the claimant's surplus status, not by trade union activity. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant had not established a prima facie case that the respondent acted for a purpose prohibited by section 146, and dismissed the claim in its entirety. No monetary award was made.