Mr A McCarrick v Greggs plc — 2026

Mr McCarrick was summarily dismissed by Greggs PLC on 23 November 2023 for gross misconduct. Conduct was an agreed and potentially fair reason for dismissal. Applying the Burchell test, the Tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the misconduct allegations, had reasonable grounds for that belief and had carried out a reasonable investigation.

The respondent's belief concerned alleged breaches of its safety and record-keeping procedures and allegations of bullying by team members. It rested on accounts from team members and supervisors, altered temperature records, the claimant's training and his own answers during the investigation. The Tribunal found that Mr Whyte conducted a reasonable investigation, Mr St John held several disciplinary meetings and made further inquiries, and Ms Duncan carried out further inquiries on appeal. The procedure was reasonably fair, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed.

The direct age and sex discrimination complaints concerned an allegation that Jennifer Griffiths said, "Come on Anthony, you are a grown man now, you're almost 60" on 8 August 2023. Ms Griffiths denied making the comment, and another employee present for parts of the conversation did not recall it. The Tribunal also noted that the allegation was not raised during the disciplinary, appeal, grievance or grievance appeal processes and first appeared in further particulars dated 3 October 2024. It found on the balance of probabilities that the comment was not made and dismissed both complaints.

Greggs PLC conceded that Mr McCarrick was disabled by PTSD and social anxiety at the relevant time. The Tribunal found, however, that he had not disclosed social anxiety in 2014 and had signed a December 2014 form denying mental health symptoms or disorders. His discussions with Ms Griffiths in 2022 concerned anxiety following specific events; he said that he was fit to return, was feeling better after counselling and needed no further support. The Tribunal found that he had minimised or hidden his condition until his email of 24 August 2023. It also rejected his account of a March 2023 disclosure of PTSD and found that knowledge gained by an independent counselling service was not imputed to the respondent. The respondent therefore did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, of the disability or relevant disadvantages during the period in issue, so no duty to make reasonable adjustments arose.

The Tribunal also found no proven disadvantage requiring the proposed adjustments. It found that the alleged attack by a colleague had not occurred, that Mr McCarrick had not attended available drop-in clinics or arranged separate meetings, and that he had not shown that he asked in 2023 to step down as team leader or be relieved of forklift duties. The reasonable-adjustments complaint was dismissed. The age, sex and reasonable-adjustments complaints were also out of time, and the Tribunal found no just and equitable basis to extend time because Mr McCarrick had received advice and had chosen to pursue internal processes. As all four complaints were dismissed, no compensation was awarded.