Case 2300331/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Thambu v The Co-Operative Group Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300331/2020
- Decision date
- 14 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Members
- Panel members
- Miss N Murphy, Ms S Evans
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Thambu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, who is Sri Lankan Tamil, alleged that his manager subjected him to race discrimination and race-related harassment between April and October 2019, and that the final incident on 24 October 2019 caused him to leave in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal. The respondent denied the allegations. The tribunal accepted that the discrimination complaints could be heard despite being presented 17 days out of time, but found the unfair dismissal, breach of contract and unauthorised deduction complaints were out of time and outside its jurisdiction.
On the facts, the tribunal found that the claimant's continuous employment began on 23 March 2015, that WhatsApp messages relied on by the respondent were between the claimant and his manager, and that timesheet and CCTV evidence were accurate. It found the CCTV from 24 October 2019 showed the claimant leaving work because he did not want to meet a person connected with the transfer of the petrol station, rather than because of abuse by his manager. It attached no weight to one unsigned witness statement and found other claimant witness evidence either of limited assistance or not truthful.
The tribunal found that the alleged discriminatory and harassing incidents did not occur. It also found that the claimant was not constructively dismissed, but resigned, and that he had no entitlement to notice pay. The holiday pay and suspension pay complaints were also dismissed; the tribunal was unclear what holiday pay was claimed, and was unconvinced by the suspension pay case in light of the pay records.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Complaint of direct race discrimination was found unfounded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Complaint of race-related harassment was found unfounded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant alleged constructive dismissal as the basis for unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the alleged events did not occur and that he resigned; it also found the complaint was out of time and it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal was unclear what holiday pay was claimed or how it was calculated; it found the complaint out of time, outside jurisdiction, unfounded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The arrears/suspension pay complaint was found out of time, outside jurisdiction, unfounded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was treated as a breach of contract/wrongful dismissal complaint. The tribunal found the claimant was not constructively dismissed, resigned without notice and had no notice entitlement; it also found the complaint out of time and outside jurisdiction. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Qureshi v Victoria University of Manchester
- s.111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer v Southend on Sea Council
- Schultz v Esso Petroleum Ltd
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Hendricks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- s.33 Limitation Act 1980
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal
- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
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.