ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000071/2022 Held on June 2023 by CVP Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr A Fragoyannis v Grampian Health Board — 2023

At a preliminary hearing on 6 June 2023, Employment Judge N M Hosie considered whether the remaining claim should be struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) or whether a deposit order should be made. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a solicitor. The tribunal took the claimant's case at its highest and did not hear evidence. The claimant had earlier withdrawn his unfair dismissal complaint, which had already been dismissed by a separate judgment on 9 March 2023.

The tribunal described the claim as arising from the claimant's work as a locum GP through Locum Meds for the respondent at Aden Health Centre. The claimant complained about remote working, admin sessions, the handling of his notice of early termination, and an asserted decision to bar him from future work at 2C practices. He said he was Greek and argued that he had been treated differently from other doctors. The respondent's case was that there was no link to race, that the claimant was an agency worker supplied through Locum Meds, and that it was free not to continue accepting his services.

Applying s.136 of the Equality Act 2010 and the authorities cited by the respondent, including Barton, Igen, Bahl and Madarassy, the tribunal held that the claimant had not set out primary facts capable of supporting a prima facie case of race discrimination. It considered that the pleadings amounted to allegations of unreasonable or differential treatment, but not facts from which discrimination could be inferred. The tribunal also accepted that the claimant's own account pointed to a non-discriminatory explanation relating to notice of early termination not being properly communicated by Locum Meds and the respondent not being obliged to retain him as an agency worker.

The tribunal further said that the claimant's harassment allegation did not satisfy the statutory definition and did not explain why the conduct complained of was because of race. Having regard to the cautionary strike-out authorities, including Anyanwu, Balls, Morgan and Hassan, the tribunal concluded that this was an exceptional case in which strike out was appropriate. The claim was therefore struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success, and no monetary award was made.