Case 1306604/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In Person v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1306604/2020
- Decision date
- 30 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Birins was employed by Tesco Stores Limited from 27 June 2011 as a weekend warehouse operative at Daventry. The tribunal found that from 2018 his performance declined under Tesco's My Performance capability process, which used staged warnings and set time-based targets for warehouse tasks. The claimant said he had not been properly trained, did not understand the performance expectations, and should have been given alternative work; the tribunal rejected those assertions and found he understood the process, knew performance rather than conduct was in issue, and had been told repeatedly that he needed to work faster and reduce still time and breaks.
The tribunal found that the respondent acted on a genuine and reasonable belief that the claimant was incapable of performing to an acceptable level. It held that the final written warning imposed on 6 October 2019 was not manifestly inappropriate and would not be reopened. The claimant had been given a long period to improve, including warnings, meetings, feedback and appeal rights, and by the time of dismissal his performance remained in the 'missing' range. Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the band of reasonable responses test, the tribunal concluded that the dismissal for capability was fair and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal dismissed the holiday pay claim. It upheld the wrongful dismissal claim and awarded £619.95, accepting that the respondent had conceded there was no contractual PILON clause and that the claimant had not been paid the sums due on termination. The award was made up of notice-related elements identified in the reasons, including annual bonus, Covid recognition bonus and weekend premium. The tribunal also upheld the unlawful deductions claim and awarded £212.46 for two unpaid shifts on 29 March 2020 and 4 April 2020.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed after the tribunal found the respondent had a genuine and reasonable capability-based belief that the claimant was underperforming, and that the final written warning was not manifestly inappropriate. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states this claim was not well founded and dismissed; no separate holiday pay award was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The respondent conceded wrongful dismissal. The tribunal awarded damages for notice-related losses, including annual bonus, Covid recognition bonus and weekend premium components. | Upheld | — | £620 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Awarded for two unpaid shifts on 29 March 2020 and 4 April 2020, valued at £106.23 each. | Upheld | — | £212 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £832
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Alidair Limited v Taylor
- British Leyland UK Limited v Swift
- Fletcher v St. Leonard’s School
- Davies v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
- Wincanton Group plc v Stone
- Taylor v OCS Group Limited
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.