Grampian Health Board and P Reid

Case Summary

The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant's claim of constructive unfair dismissal as she does not have sufficient qualifying service. The claimant's application to amend her claim is refused. The claimant's remaining claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment related to disability shall proceed to a hearing.

The tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the constructive unfair dismissal claim because the claimant does not have sufficient qualifying service, which is a statutory requirement for unfair dismissal claims. The remaining discrimination and harassment claims proceed as they are not subject to the same qualifying service threshold.

• •constructive unfair dismissal
• •disability discrimination

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000628/2025 Preliminary Hearing held by CVP on 26 November 2025 Employment Judge McFatridge Ms K Taylor Claimant In person Grampian Health Board1 st Respondent Represented by: Mr Wells, Solicitor Pauline Reid2 nd Respondent Represented by: Mr Wells, Solicitor JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The judgment of the Tribunal is that 1. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claimant’s claim of constructive unfair dismissal since the claimant does not have sufficient qualifying service. 2. The claimant’s application to amend her claim is refused. 3. The claimant’s remaining claims of direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability, and the claim of a failure to make reasonable adjustments and the claim of harassment related to disability shall proceed to a hearing. 8000628/2025Page2 REASONS 1.The claimant submitted a claim to the Tribunal following the termination of her employment with the respondent. The claimant made various claims in her ET1. The respondent submitted a response in which they denied these claims. The case has been subject to a degree of case management following which the claimant has submitted various documents stating to be further and better particulars of her claims and also seeking to amend her claims. The amendment is resisted by the respondent. In their ET3 the respondent also identified that they considered the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with the claimant’s claim of “ordinary” unfair constructive dismissal since the claimant did not have two years’ qualifying service. This was disputed by the claimant on the basis that there had been no interruption in her employment from the time she ended a previous employment contract with the respondent until she started on her final employment contract with them. A preliminary hea…