EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001246/2024 Held in Aberdeen on 4, 5, & November & & December 2025 Employment Judge N M Hosie Members A Perriam R A’brook Mr Ashfaq Chandio v Grampian Health Board — 2026

Mr Ashfaq Chandio, a Pakistani Muslim general surgeon, was employed by NHS Grampian on a fixed-term locum contract from 4 April 2022, later extended to 3 April 2024. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that after the 2022 contamination and ventilation incident at Dr Gray's Hospital, theatre and endoscopy capacity changed materially for all surgeons, so Mr Chandio's job plan could not be performed exactly as written. It also accepted that concerns about his endoscopy performance and later clinical events led to management steps which were taken for patient safety and practice review, not because of race or religion.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason, namely the expiry of the fixed-term contract and the respondent's wish to recruit a substantive consultant, for which Mr Chandio was not eligible because he was not on the GMC Specialist Register. Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996, it held that the dismissal was fair in all the circumstances. The tribunal noted that the termination was discussed at a meeting on 5 January 2024, that Mr Chandio did not appeal, and that he declined the redeployment register.

The breach of contract claim was also dismissed. The tribunal accepted the respondent's case that the original job plan had become impossible to operate in full because theatre time and endoscopy sessions were no longer available in the same way after the contamination incident, and because Mr Chandio would not agree a revised job plan. It accepted the arguments on frustration of the adventure, rei interitus, and severability, and found no damages claim remained. The on-call supplement point was resolved by payment of the difference due.

The discrimination claims, including direct discrimination on race and religion or belief, harassment, and victimisation, all failed. The tribunal found no evidence that Mr Chandio was treated less favourably because of race or religion, no link between the telephone call of 18 January 2024 and either protected characteristic, and no detriment imposed because of protected acts. It also recorded that the preliminary enquiry ultimately recommended learning outcomes rather than restriction, but by then his employment had ended. No award of compensation was made because all claims were dismissed.