Case 1601200/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss F Martin v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1601200/2020
- Decision date
- 20 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ward Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss F Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a lead manager with 18 years' service and a clean disciplinary record, was dismissed after an investigation into recruitment processes for two relatives taken on as temporary Christmas workers. The respondent found that she had asked colleagues to breach recruitment procedures and falsify documents, including an interview form and a right to work declaration.
The Tribunal held that conduct was a potentially fair reason for dismissal under section 98(2)(b) ERA 1996. It found that the investigation was reasonable in the circumstances, that the respondent had a genuine belief in gross misconduct, and that the belief was based on reasonable grounds. It rejected challenges concerning earlier undisclosed statements, the failure to interview the claimant's relatives, and the different treatment of junior colleagues.
The Tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. For wrongful dismissal, it found that the respondent proved that the claimant asked Kristian to complete an interview form for Martin when he had not interviewed him, and asked Hannah to sign a right to work declaration for Ruth when Hannah was not the interviewing manager and Ruth was not present. Those matters constituted gross misconduct and the claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that the respondent proved conduct as the potentially fair reason and that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant committed gross misconduct which was the reason for dismissal, so the dismissal was not wrongful. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Section 98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores Limited v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
- range of reasonable responses
- balance of probabilities
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.