Mr A Abdullah v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2021

Mr A Abdullah had worked for Tesco Stores Limited since 2003 and was dismissed on 20 May 2021 from his role as Lead Night Manager at the Croydon Fulfilment Centre. The tribunal found that the dismissal arose from three misconduct allegations concerning his dealings with Bianca Tordai: authorising additional payments while she was on placement at Elmers End, providing a mortgage reference that included inflated salary information, and making her fearful for her job and career. The tribunal accepted that the underlying reason for dismissal was misconduct and that the employer genuinely believed the allegations had been proved.

On the factual issues, the tribunal found that Ms Tordai had been overpaid during her Elmers End placement for Sundays she did not work, that Mr Abdullah was responsible for authorising the relevant manual clockings and exception coding, and that it was not acceptable for him simply to accept her word for the hours said to have been worked. It also found that he had been involved in pushing her progression within the organisation, and that the text messages and surrounding evidence supported the conclusion that he had used his position to influence her pay and career. In relation to the mortgage reference, the tribunal accepted that he had written a reference using inflated earnings figures and that, at the disciplinary hearing, he accepted that the reference was wrong.

The tribunal held that the investigation carried out by Abbie Eastwell was sufficiently thorough and that the disciplinary and appeal stages were fair overall. Although the disciplinary manager gave only a cursory explanation for dismissal, the tribunal found that Adrian Connell’s appeal process properly revisited the evidence and corrected that procedural shortcoming. Applying Burchell and section 98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal concluded that Tesco had reasonable grounds for its belief in misconduct and that summary dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.

The discrimination and harassment claims all failed. The tribunal found no basis to infer race or religion as the reason for any of the challenged acts, and it rejected the comparator cases relied on by Mr Abdullah as materially different. It held that questions about whether he had declared the relationship, references to money as an underlying theme, the right-to-work request, the handling of Ms Tordai’s grievance, and the comments made during investigation and appeal were all explained by the conflict-of-interest and misconduct investigation, not by protected characteristics. The harassment allegations also failed because several factual premises were not proved and the tribunal was not satisfied that the conduct complained of was related to race.