Case 1601052/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Lewis v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601052/2021
- Decision date
- 17 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed without notice on 11 May 2021 after a dispute about whether his move to night bakery work had become a permanent contractual arrangement. The tribunal found the respondent had decided the bakery no longer needed night baking, and that asking the claimant to work temporarily in the grocery department on the same hours and pay while the contractual dispute was considered was a reasonable management request.
The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct, specifically the claimant's refusal to move to grocery and refusal to leave the store when asked on 28 March 2021. It rejected the claimant's case that there was a plan or conspiracy to dismiss him. The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct on reasonable grounds, had carried out a reasonable investigation in the circumstances, acted procedurally fairly, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
The notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found the claimant's conduct was sufficiently serious to amount to gross misconduct. The bonus claim also failed because the bonus scheme was discretionary and permitted withholding in the circumstances found. The wage claim succeeded only in relation to the night shift premium during suspension: although the premium was not basic pay, the tribunal found suspension should be neutral and the claimant should have received his usual pay including the night premium. The claims for 10 May 2021 pay and holiday pay were dismissed. Because the claimant succeeded on part of the wages claim and had not been given written notice of changes to working hours and days, the tribunal ordered four weeks' additional pay under section 38, with the sums to be determined at a remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was fairly dismissed for conduct, namely insubordination, and dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The notice pay claim was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct entitling the respondent to dismiss without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim concerning bonus pay was dismissed; the tribunal found non-payment was not a breach of contract under the discretionary Annual Bonus Plan. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Upheld only in relation to non-payment of night shift premium during suspension. The judgment stated a remedy hearing would determine the sum payable. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed in relation to the alleged non-payment for 10 May 2021. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found there was no unlawful deduction in relation to holiday pay during suspension; the claimant was treated as on holiday and paid accordingly. |
Legal tests applied
20 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Post Office v Foley
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Hitt
- London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Small
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay & Anderson
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins
- Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Wardle
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- s.13 ERA 1996
- s.23 ERA 1996
- s.27 ERA 1996
- s.38 Employment Act 2002
- ACAS Code of Practice on Discipline and Grievance Procedures
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.