Mr S McIntosh v Aberdeen City Council — 2025

The claimant worked as a city warden and was accepted by the respondent, for the purposes of the claim, to be disabled by reason of autism. The Tribunal found that managers had concerns about the claimant's approach to members of the public, including incidents where he was considered to have overstepped the city warden role. Following a 29 December 2023 incident involving a member of the public, the respondent investigated and issued a formal verbal warning, taking the claimant's disability into account as mitigation.

The Tribunal found that the claimant's alleged protected disclosures were grievances about his own treatment and did not satisfy the public interest disclosure test. It therefore dismissed the whistleblowing detriment claim and the claim that any constructive dismissal was automatically unfair. It also found no breach of contract by the respondent, noting that no final decision had been made on the claimant's flexible working request when he resigned and that refusal of special leave pending that process was not a repudiatory breach or a last straw.

The disability discrimination claims were dismissed. The Tribunal did not accept that an alleged comment about diversity targets was made, found that the claimant was not suspended but offered an alternative to suspension, and concluded that the disciplinary process was a proportionate response to the 29 December incident even if disability-related conduct were assumed. It also found no harassment, victimisation, or failure to make reasonable adjustments, including because the claimant had received training, management discussions, and adjustments recorded in his disability passport.

The respondent's application for expenses was refused. The Tribunal considered that the threshold for an award had been met, but declined to make an award after taking account of the claimant's financial means and the relationship between aspects of the proceedings and his disability.