E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 8001973/2024 Held on 9, and June 202510 Employment Judge N M Hosie Miss I Macdonald v ITS Testing Services (UK) Limited — 2025

Miss Macdonald was employed as Training Manager in Aberdeen and had lengthy sickness absences in 2023 and 2024, mainly recorded as anxiety and acute reaction to stress. A March 2024 payroll error led to an underpayment of £1,720.07, which the respondent accepted was an error and which was paid out of cycle within five working days of the internal payroll team receiving the query. She later brought a grievance about the handling of that issue and about references to her health condition during HR discussions.

The tribunal found that the respondent had a genuine redundancy case in relation to the Training Manager role. It accepted Robin Cuthbert’s evidence that the need for the role had diminished because the work was being covered by existing team members and by him, and that the decision to progress redundancy developed over time through discussions with senior management. The tribunal held that the dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses under s.98(4) ERA 1996, including the warning and consultation process, the search for alternative roles, and the refusal to ring-fence a different position.

The reasonable adjustments claim failed because the tribunal found that the refusal to allow the second consultation meeting to be recorded was not a relevant PCP and, in any event, there was no evidence that Miss Macdonald was put at a substantial disadvantage. The refusal to appoint a different HR representative was also treated as a one-off decision rather than a PCP, and no substantial disadvantage was proved. The tribunal noted that Ms Tak had been involved from the outset and that the respondent’s decision was within the band of reasonable responses.

The discrimination arising from disability claim also failed. The tribunal held that the redundancy decision was not motivated by something arising in consequence of disability; rather, the context was that the role was no longer required. It further found that the respondent acted in good faith in relation to the payroll issue and did not treat Miss Macdonald unfavourably because of her disability. For completeness, the tribunal said the payroll complaint would have been out of time, but that it would have extended time as just and equitable if necessary.