A LONG-RUNNING employment tribunal hearing into a Tayside police constable’s claim that he was passed over for promotion because he expressed concerns about the force’s working practices is expected to end today.

Concluding the evidence to the tribunal yesterday, a senior Tayside officer denied that failure to supply documents requested by PC Douglas Fisher amounted to “pure obstruction.”

PC Fisher claims he was unfairly overlooked for promotion because he voiced health and safety concerns over the force’s single- officer policing policy.

The final witness to the tribunal, Superintendent Fiona Clacher, had been asked to produce a report on the constable’s claim that he had been unfairly treated and victimised by two senior officers.

Continuing her evidence yesterday, she said that it was an “exceptional situation.” After investigating, she was satisfied there had been no misconduct on the part of either officer.

Indeed, she found that Inspector Graeme Donald had gone out of his way to help PC Fisher submit the best possible application.

She told the tribunal that she formed the opinion that she was “dealing with someone dissatisfied with not getting into the promotion process.”

PC Fisher’s advocate Marcus McKay referred the superintendent to a performance review note on his time in CID, which appeared to raise numerous incidents, some of them relatively serious, where the constable’s performance fell below the required standard.

The fact that these concerns did not appear to have been noted at the time, in the usual way, and that she had difficulty tracing the document did not give rise to concerns over whether or not it was genuine, she said. Asked if she had taken the note “at face value,” she replied, “I didn’t see anything false about it.”

Turning to PC Fisher’s repeated requests for documents relating to the case, Mr McKay suggested that the officer was not being taken seriously because he was not supported by the Scottish Police Federation and the force believed that there was no real chance of his case proceeding past the preliminary employment tribunal stage.

“The position here is one of pure obstruction in not releasing information to which this gentleman was entitled. Is that fair to say?” he asked.

Superintendent Clacher rejected the suggestion, adding that the requests for documents had been separated from the complaint to be dealt with by officers who handled such matters.

She agreed that she had received a complaint from PC Fisher’s father in March 2004 regarding a communication his son had received from Inspector Chris Whyte, which Mr Fisher senior found offensive.

Mr Fisher senior said that the complaint had nothing to do with his son, she recalled.

Asked if she had sought PC Fisher’s comments on the letter, she said that she did not “seek or invite” complaints, but followed them up.

Some months later it seemed that he might also be complaining about the letter, the tribunal heard.

Mr McKay pointed out that the heading of the communication from PC Fisher included the word “complaint” and suggested it was “crystal clear” that he was making a formal complaint.

“He doesn’t use the words, ‘I want to make a complaint,’ ” replied the superintendent. In any event, she had treated the matter as a complaint by referring it to the area procurator fiscal.

Asked if PC Fisher’s opposition to single-officer policing had become “almost notorious throughout the Tayside force,” she replied, “Yes, it was well known,” adding that the level of interest had risen after employment tribunal proceedings were under way.

The tribunal, which started last September, will today hear closing submissions from Mr McKay and solicitor Ken Glass, for Tayside Police.