Case 8000025/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Member J Connolly Tribunal Member K Pirie Ms Eilidh Rattray v Gas Call Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000025/2022
- Decision date
- 1 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp Tribunal
- Venue
- Aberdeen
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member J Connolly, Tribunal Member K Pirie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member J Connolly Tribunal Member K Pirie Ms Eilidh Rattray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Service and Repair Technician and returned from maternity leave on 25 March 2022 working 40 hours a week over four days. On 25 April, 9 May and 7 June 2022 she reported disconnected or missing microswitches on boilers to Mr Jamie Tugman. The tribunal found that the respondent had a health and safety committee and a safety representative, but that it had not been reasonably practicable for the claimant to raise the matter through those channels, and that on 7 June 2022 she reasonably believed the missing or bypassed microswitch was potentially harmful to health or safety.
The automatic unfair dismissal claim nevertheless failed because the tribunal found that Mr Michael Donnelly decided to dismiss the claimant because of Facebook posts she had made on 7 June 2022, which he believed were likely to bring the respondent into disrepute. It found that he did not know about the health and safety messages when he took that decision. The tribunal accepted that the dismissal process was rushed and did not follow the respondent's own disciplinary procedure or the ACAS Code, but held that those procedural defects did not change the reason for dismissal, which was the posts and their perceived reputational risk.
The sex discrimination claim also failed. The tribunal found that the claimant carried out a mixture of servicing and repair work after her maternity leave, that allocation varied with business demand, and that she had made only informal requests to do less servicing. It held that Mr Kevin Traynor was not an apt comparator because he had made a written request to change role and moved to installations. The allegation relating to Mr Marc Easton was rejected because the circumstances were materially different and the tribunal did not find less favourable treatment because of sex. As both claims failed, no remedy was awarded; the tribunal noted in passing that it did not consider the claimant had failed to mitigate loss.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had raised a health and safety concern on 7 June 2022, but found that the principal reason for dismissal was the Facebook posts made that day, not the disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the claimant had not established a prima facie case of less favourable treatment, and rejected the comparator case involving Marc Easton. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson
- W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins
- Balfour Kirkpatrick Ltd v Acheson
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- s.39 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC
- Glasgow City Council v Zafar
- Malcolm v Dundee City Council
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.