Case 2302353/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Preko v Costco Wholesale (UK) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302353/2019
- Decision date
- 10 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
- Venue
- London South via CVP
- Panel members
- Ms R Bailey, Mr C Rogers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Preko
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that only the direct race discrimination, race harassment and victimisation claims proceeded to final hearing. It also recorded that the unfair dismissal and holiday pay claims had been struck out at a preliminary hearing on 10 February 2020 because they were out of time and the tribunal declined jurisdiction.
On the race discrimination and harassment allegations arising from events in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, the tribunal found there were insufficient facts from which it could conclude that the claimant had been treated less favourably because of race, or subjected to unwanted conduct related to race. It found, among other things, that the 2016 racial comment by Ms Soper had been dealt with by the respondent, that some alleged detriments did not occur, and that other incidents such as the promotional stock issue, timesheet disciplinary process, grievance handling and sickness pay arrangements did not support an inference of race discrimination.
In relation to the January 2019 investigation, dismissal and appeal about the drone incident, the tribunal found the respondent acted because it believed the claimant had taken a customer's drone off the premises when he could and should have handed it in. It found no evidence that race explained the investigation, dismissal or appeal outcome, and no evidence of a causal connection between the claimant's July 2017 grievance and the later treatment. The tribunal therefore dismissed the direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims, and concluded that the alleged continuing act was not made out.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race harassment claim under s.26 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation claim under s.27 Equality Act 2010 was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal claim was struck out at the preliminary hearing on 10 February 2020 as out of time and the Tribunal declined jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment records that the holiday pay claim was struck out at the preliminary hearing on 10 February 2020 as out of time and the Tribunal declined jurisdiction. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Igen Ltd v Wong two-stage approach
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd
- Laing v Manchester City Council
- Madarassy v Nomura International PLC
- Martin v Devonshires Solicitors
- South Western Ambulance NHS Foundation Trust v King
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.