Case 2301734/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Wraga v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301734/2021
- Decision date
- 27 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge England Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Wraga
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant's written contract provided for two days of core hours plus flexible additional hours, and that there had been no oral contract or contractual variation entitling him to five guaranteed days each week. The tribunal accepted that he often worked more than two days, but held that this was consistent with the written terms for additional non-guaranteed overtime.
The sick pay claim was dismissed because the claimant had been paid sick pay for his two core days and there was no obligation to pay sick pay for additional non-guaranteed hours. The holiday pay claim was also dismissed because it depended on the same argument that his contractual entitlement was five days per week, and the tribunal found no failure to pay the correct holiday pay.
For the automatic unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had alleged infringement of relevant statutory rights on several occasions. However, it found that the principal reason for dismissal was not those assertions, but the respondent's review of temporary contracts against business need and an oversubscription of staff hours at the store.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104 ERA 1996 based on alleged assertion of statutory rights was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was advanced as an unlawful deduction of wages claim and/or breach of contract, but the tribunal treated it as a holiday pay claim and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unlawful deduction of wages claim concerned sick pay and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.104(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.104(4)(a) ERA 1996
- s.104(4)(d) ERA 1996
- Attrill v Dresdner Kleinwort Ltd [2012] EWHC 1189 (QB)
- Solectron Scotland Ltd v Roper [2004] I.R.L.R. 4
- Maund v Penwith District Council 1984 ICR 143
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] ICR 799
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.