Case 8000160/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Member Grime Tribunal Member Currie Mr A Smith v Health Board — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000160/2022
- Decision date
- 25 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster Tribunal
- Venue
- Edinburgh
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Grime, Tribunal Member Currie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member Grime Tribunal Member Currie Mr A Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Domestic Assistant at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and the tribunal found he was a disabled person at the relevant time because of shoulder, neck and knee pain. The evidence showed that his duties had previously been adjusted for him, including use of a lift key, assistance with medication that could make him dizzy, removal from A&E work in 2019 at his request, and exemption from high-level theatre cleaning because of his knee pain.
The central incident occurred on 9 July 2022, when the claimant was asked to work in A&E until 10pm because of a change in how A&E cleaning was organised. He refused, shouted at LM and JM, and left the room. The tribunal found there was no evidence that he had been belittled, and it did not accept that he was required to do work he was incapable of doing. It found that he would have been working with another Domestic Assistant, would not have been expected to clean the same number of theatres as before, and could have received assistance if needed. On that basis, the harassment complaint and the first discrimination arising from disability complaint failed.
The tribunal also rejected the reasonable adjustments claim. It found that the claimant had not proved a PCP requiring cleaners to work in all areas of the hospital without adjustment to duties, and the evidence of earlier accommodations undermined that case. On the later occupational health point, the tribunal accepted that the respondent did not arrange a meeting after the September and October 2022 reports, but found that this was because it wanted to investigate the relationship breakdown the claimant had described, including his stated inability to work with JM, rather than because of his disability or what the respondent believed he could do. The proposed amendment to add victimisation was refused because it was late, out of time, and would have prejudiced the respondent. The age discrimination and unlawful deduction complaints were withdrawn by the claimant and the judgment records them as dismissed following withdrawal. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | s.26 EqA; allegation that JM belittled the claimant at the 9 July 2022 meeting and required him to do work he could not do. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | s.15 EqA; allegation that the claimant was unfavourably treated on 9 July 2022 by being instructed to work in A&E. The tribunal found he was not asked to do work he was incapable of doing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | s.15 EqA; allegation that the respondent failed to follow occupational health advice after the September/October 2022 reports. The tribunal found there was unfavourable treatment in not arranging a meeting, but no causal link to disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | s.20-21 EqA reasonable adjustments claim; the alleged PCP of requiring cleaners to work in all areas of the hospital without adjustment was not proved. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Age discrimination | Withdrawn by the claimant before the final hearing; the judgment records dismissal following withdrawal. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Withdrawn by the claimant before the final hearing; the judgment records dismissal following withdrawal. |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.26 EqA
- s.15 EqA
- s.20 EqA
- s.21 EqA
- s.136 EqA
- Pnaiser v NHS England [2016] IRLR 170
- Sheikholeslami v University of Edinburgh [2018] IRLR 1090
- Ishola v Transport for London [2020] IRLR 368
- Igen v Wong [2005] IRLR 258
- Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] IRLR 246
- Laing v Manchester City Council [2006] IRLR 748
- Selkent Bus Co v Moore [1996] IRLR 661
- Vaughan v Modality Partnerships [2021] ICR 535
- Abercrombie v AGA Rangemaster [2013] ICR 215
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.