ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000675/2024 Hearing at Edinburgh (Hybrid) on 8, and January 2025 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Tribunal Member: S Lawson Tribunal Member: Z Van Zwanenberg Leigh Grigor v Bathing Mobility Advisory Service Ltd — 2023

Leigh Grigor had been employed by Bathing Mobility Advisory Service Ltd since 2008 and was a Sales Manager from 1 November 2018. At the January 2025 hearing, the tribunal considered her constructive unfair dismissal and direct sex discrimination claims. It recorded that her whistleblowing complaint had already been withdrawn and dismissed by judgment dated 1 November 2024. The dispute arose from the respondent's introduction of the Loyverse sales system, the disciplinary warning issued in January 2024, and the handling of the claimant's bonus and expenses issues.

On constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent had clearly instructed sales staff from July 2023 to use Loyverse, had held a Teams demonstration, sent follow-up emails, produced a short video, and given the claimant individual help on more than one occasion. It found that the claimant did not generally use the system and preferred the old manual method. The tribunal held that commencing disciplinary proceedings and issuing a written warning for failure to follow a reasonable management instruction was not a breach of contract. It also rejected the claimant's argument that the bonus delay and the expenses correspondence, taken together or separately, amounted to a repudiatory breach or a breakdown of trust and confidence.

The tribunal found that the bonus provision in the claimant's contract was later identified and paid in February 2024 in the sum of £14,303.79, covering the period from November 2018 to November 2023. It accepted that the respondent's explanation for the delay was not impressive, but found there was no deliberate withholding and that the respondent acted reasonably quickly once the contractual term was identified. On expenses, the tribunal found it was reasonable for the respondent to ask for details and vouching, and that the claimant's original claim of £4,964.80 was correctly revised to £1,308.77 before payment. It held that the respondent was not making an improper accusation about dishonesty and had exercised discretion in her favour by paying the expenses outwith the policy time limit.

On direct sex discrimination, the tribunal held that the claimant had not shown less favourable treatment because of sex. Colin Hogg was not a proper comparator because he had been attempting to use Loyverse and had made an error, whereas the claimant was found to be refusing to use the system. Daniel Cameron was also in materially different circumstances because he was paid full pay during sick leave following an injury at work, and the respondent had exercised its discretion for that reason. The tribunal therefore dismissed the sex discrimination claim. As no claim succeeded, it awarded no compensation.