[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Glennie v Aberdeen City Council [2002] UKEAT 0002_02_2409 (24 September 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/0002_02_2409.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 2_2_2409, [2002] UKEAT 0002_02_2409

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	Mrs Elaine Glennie, In Person, 5 Irvine Park NEWMACHAR AB21 OWP
For the Respondents	Mrs F Selbie, Solicitor Of- Aberdeen City Council Legal Services Town House Broad Street ABERDEEN AB10 1AQ


 


LORD JOHNSTON:

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the former employee of the respondents against the decision of the Employment Tribunal dismissing various claims brought by her against the respondents, on grounds of time bar.
2. Before us, her principal allegation was one of victimisation which she claimed arose from a statement made by a superior, to the effect that she had obtained a post in relation to a particular project as the appointee of a head teacher because she was "his female friend". In addition, however, as she developed her argument before us, she sought to suggest that an investigation into her time sheets when she was working on the project in question prior to her being dismissed, implied that she was dishonest.
3. It has to be said at once, that neither of these allegations feature to a material extent in the Tribunal's decision which was entirely based on the fact that, in relation to sex discrimination, there was no continuing act of victimisation, even if there ever had been one at all, which would enable the period of three months to be extended, under reference to the decision of Rhys-Harper v Relaxion Group Plc [2001] IRLR 460.
4. The matter can be shortly disposed of in the manner submitted by Mrs Selbie, who appeared for the respondents.
5. The suggestion that the Tribunal have erred in any way in reaching its conclusion on time bar is fully unfounded, the reason being, in any event, that there is no evidence of victimisation. It is perhaps unfortunate that the Council did not inform the appellant rather more clearly why they were looking at her time sheets but, it is perfectly apparent to us, that this was not impugning her honesty but rather relating to a case being brought against the relevant head teacher. Nor, can it be properly said, in our view, that the allegation relating to the phrase "female friend" amounts to victimisation in any material sense that that word has to bear. We understand the concerns and, indeed, the distress that the appellant has plainly suffered in this matter but she is a victim indirectly of a process not directed against her at all.
6. In these circumstances, we consider this appeal is without any merit and will be dismissed.