Case 8001366/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms H Worthington v North Ayrshire Women’s Aid — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001366/2024
- Decision date
- 19 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Doherty
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms H Worthington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs H Worthington worked as a Women’s Aid Support Worker from 6 June 2022. The tribunal found that, when she applied for the job, she was given a person specification identifying a driving licence and use of her own vehicle as essential, and that she told the interview panel she had a car. Although the version uploaded to the website in March 2023 did not contain that requirement, the tribunal found that was an error. It also found that the claimant was aware of the requirement and raised in January 2024 that she no longer had a car.
The respondents relied on some other substantial reason under section 98(1)(b) ERA 1996, namely that the claimant needed her own vehicle to perform the WASW role and did not have one. The tribunal accepted that there were genuine and legitimate reasons for the requirement: the role involved home visits, transporting women and children and goods, cleaning and dump runs, and the service operated in rural and sparsely populated areas with limited public transport. It also accepted that the organisation’s vehicles were limited, had to be booked for specified tasks, and were needed by other staff, including General Assistants. The tribunal accepted there was no issue with the claimant’s performance, but found that this did not answer the vehicle requirement.
On procedure, the tribunal found that the issue was raised with the claimant in January 2024, followed by meetings in February and May, and that she was warned in the 22 May 2024 letter that her employment was at risk if she did not have access to a car by 19 June 2024. It found that she was told she could be accompanied at the meeting, attended the 19 June 2024 meeting, and had an appeal hearing on 4 July 2024 before Ms Beglan. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and the objective test of whether the employer acted reasonably, the tribunal held that dismissal for this reason fell within the band of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondents had a fair SOSR reason for dismissal and that the dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996 (some other substantial reason)
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
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.