Case 2401886/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Masuri v Lidl Great Britain Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401886/2019
- Decision date
- 30 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
- Panel members
- Mr A Clarke, Mr M Stemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Masuri
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant alleged that managers had made false allegations about his conduct on 12 August 2018 and that this was because of race. The tribunal found that the claimant arrived two hours late, did not work the shift, raised his voice, and touched a manager on the shoulder or chest a number of times but not forcefully. It found the allegations were not fabricated and were not made because of the claimant's colour or Nigerian national origin.
The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract and no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. It also found that, even if there had been a breach, the claimant had delayed and affirmed the contract by remaining employed, taking part in the disciplinary process, and resigning after the final written warning. It concluded he resigned because he had been issued with the final written warning, not because of the alleged August breach.
The wages claim for the 12 August 2018 shift was dismissed as out of time, with an alternative finding that the payment was not properly payable because the claimant had not worked the shift. The holiday pay claim was dismissed because the claimant had not proved that further statutory holiday pay was owed, and the tribunal accepted evidence that he had been overpaid salary and that deductions were contractually authorised.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes this as a constructive unfair dismissal claim based on alleged breach of the implied term of trust and confidence; it was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent was not in breach of contract, including in relation to the alleged false allegations and disciplinary process. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant relied on colour and Nigerian national origin. The tribunal found the allegations were not false and were not made because of race. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim for unpaid accrued holiday under the Working Time Regulations 1998 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the wages claim was out of time and it had no jurisdiction. In the alternative it would have found no unlawful deduction because payment for the 12 August 2018 shift was not properly payable. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
21 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.23 Equality Act 2010
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Chief Constable of Kent Constabulary v Bowler
- Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crossthwaite Securities Limited
- Igen Limited and others v Wong
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Greg May (Carpet Fitters and Contractors) Ltd v Dring
- Camden Primary Care Trust v Atchoe
- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Paul Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corporation
- Malik v Bank of Credit; Mahmud v Bank of Credit
- Walker v Josiah Wedgwood & Sons Ltd
- W.E. Cox Toner (International) Ltd v Crook
- Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council
- s.23 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.