Case 8001301/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C De Oliveira v The Royal Blind Asylum and School and 3 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001301/2024
- Decision date
- 22 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Robison
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr C De Oliveira
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing held by CVP in Edinburgh on 22 October 2024 before Employment Judge M Robison. The claimant had presented claims on 25 August 2024 for unfair dismissal, detriment, unfair dismissal following public interest disclosure, and age, race and sex discrimination. At the hearing he confirmed that he was no longer pursuing claims against the second and fourth respondents, and those claims were dismissed.
The claimant also accepted that he did not have two years' service with the respondent. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The note records that the claim for automatically unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure would continue.
The tribunal summarised the whistleblowing case as relying on a series of emails said to have been sent between September 2023 and July 2024, together with the ET1 itself, and the claimant's case that those disclosures related to alleged harm to service users, failures to report or investigate, and an alleged cover-up. It also recorded the alleged detriments said to follow from the disclosures, including removal from the workplace, suspension, dismissal, refusal of flexible working, and bullying or harassment.
The discrimination claims were recorded as race, age and sex discrimination against the first respondent and Mr Cowan. The race complaint was said to arise from comments attributed to Mr Cowan, while the age and sex claims related to rota allocation and the alleged refusal of flexible working. No merits findings were made on those live issues at this hearing. The case was listed for a 10-day in-person final hearing from 13 to 24 January 2025, with liability and remedy to be heard together, and directions were made for further information, disclosure and a schedule of loss.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant accepted he did not have two years' service, so the ordinary unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. The judgment records that the automatic unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosure would proceed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claims against the second and fourth respondents were withdrawn and dismissed. The judgment does not identify a separate legal head for those respondent-specific claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.