Scottish Water

Case Summary

The claimant brought a claim for victimisation relating to her raising an equal pay claim and a subsequent grievance. The tribunal found that the alleged acts of detriment were not established and dismissed the claim.

The tribunal found that the alleged acts of detriment were not established on the evidence presented, and therefore the victimisation claim could not succeed.

• •Whether the claimant was subjected to detriments because of protected acts

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No:4104453/2023 Held inGlasgowon14–17 October 2025 Deliberations: 10, 20 and 21 November 2025 Employment JudgeD Hoey Ms L EdgarClaimant Represented by: Mr R Clark- Solicitor Scottish WaterRespondent Represented by: Mr M McLaughlin- Solicitor JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUANL The claim is ill founded and it is dismissed. REASONS 1.The claimant presented a claim for victimisation. Following a preliminary hearing and further discussions with the parties a large number of the detriments were withdrawn and theclaim was focused. The Hearing had been fixed to determined liability only. Evidence 2.The parties had produced a joint bundle of 368 pages (which included a small number of additional documents added during the Hearing). The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, Ms T McArthur (a colleague of the claimant who was atradeunion official from whom the claimant, herself a trade union steward, took advice), Ms G Reid (the claimant’s line manager, whose conduct the claimant relied upon as detriments), Mr Bingham (a colleague of the clamant) and Ms Boyce (another colleague). Issues 4104453/2023Page2 3.The parties narrowed the issues in this case. By the time the Hearing called the following were the issues to be determined: 1.The first protected act was the raising of the equal pay claim and this was accepted to be a protected act. The second protected act was the raising of a grievance by the claimant on 14 March 2023. 2.The first issue to determine was whether the following alleged acts (“Alleged Acts”) had been established in evidence: (1)Ms Reid ignoring and ostracising the claimant in the period between 21 November 2022 and 29 March 2023; (2)Ms Reid being curt with the claimant and/or failing to acknowledge the claimant in meetings between 21 November 2022 and 29 March 2023; and (3)Ms Reid speaking to the claimant in a hostile and aggressive …