Case 8000173/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Member A Grant Tribunal Member L Grime Mrs Elaine Simpson v Red Band Chemical Co. Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000173/2025
- Decision date
- 10 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp Tribunal
- Panel members
- A Grant, L Grime
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member A Grant Tribunal Member L Grime Mrs Elaine Simpson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Elaine Simpson worked for Red Band Chemical Co Ltd as a dispenser from November 2019. After bowel surgery for cancer in July 2023 and a period of light duties on return, she had continuing difficulties with colleagues, particularly Ms Fiona McArthur and later Ms Jackie Henderson. The tribunal found the respondent held mediation, grievance, review and flexible-working discussions, and that Mrs Simpson resigned by email on 27 November 2024 and left work on 21 December 2024.
On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal held that Mrs Simpson had not been dismissed within s95(1)(c) ERA 1996. It found the respondent had engaged with the relationship difficulties, that the claimant had not shown a repudiatory breach or final straw, and that the reduced-hours arrangement she had requested was later reversed by agreement before she resigned. The tribunal also said that, even if there had been a dismissal, the respondent had reasonable and proper cause and a potentially fair SOSR reason in seeking to manage workplace relationships.
On disability discrimination, the tribunal rejected the reasonable adjustments claim about prescriptions or 'owings' being kept on low shelves, finding it more likely that they were placed on the counter each Friday evening and that no complaint was made when opportunities arose. It rejected the harassment claim under s26 EqA 2010, holding that the incidents relied on were not related to disability; it also treated some of the older matters as out of time and refused to extend time. The tribunal further rejected the claim framed as discrimination arising from disability or discriminatory dismissal, finding that the workplace difficulties pre-dated the cancer diagnosis and were not caused by disability.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim under s95(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal found no repudiatory breach or final straw, and in any event held the respondent had reasonable and proper cause and a potentially fair SOSR reason in managing workplace relationships. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Reasonable adjustments claim under ss20-21 Equality Act 2010 about prescriptions/owings being kept on low shelves. The tribunal found it more likely they were placed on the counter each Friday evening and that no failure to adjust was proved; it also held any earlier complaint was out of time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment claim under s26 Equality Act 2010 based on the February 2024 social event, the box incident, holiday refusal, consultation-room request and HighFive message. The tribunal held the conduct was not related to disability, and several matters were out of time with no basis to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim framed as discrimination arising from disability / discriminatory dismissal. The tribunal found there was no dismissal for Equality Act purposes and that the workplace difficulties stemmed from pre-existing relationship problems, not from disability. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating Ltd v Sharp
- Malik implied term of trust and confidence
- Aberdeen City Council v McNeil
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust final straw test
- s98(4) ERA 1996
- s20 Equality Act 2010
- s21 Equality Act 2010
- s26 Equality Act 2010
- s39 Equality Act 2010
- s123 Equality Act 2010
- s136 Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- Tees Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust v Aslam
- Land Registry v Grant
- De Lacey v Wechseln Ltd
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.