Case 2402826/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. K. Thompson v Wilko Retail Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402826/2019
- Decision date
- 5 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. K. Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that any claims that the claimant had been subjected to detriments and/or had been automatically unfairly dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays under sections 45 and 101 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were withdrawn by the claimant. Those claims were dismissed accordingly.
The tribunal found that the claimant resigned from his employment with effect from 7 December 2018 and was not dismissed. On that basis, the claim of constructive unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment states that no request for written reasons was made at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records claims of detriment for refusing Sunday work under section 45 ERA 1996, if pleaded, as withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed accordingly. The locked taxonomy does not contain a direct category for this statutory detriment claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records a claim that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays under section 101 ERA 1996, if pleaded, as withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed accordingly. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant resigned with effect from 7 December 2018, was not dismissed, and therefore his claim of constructive unfair dismissal failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 45 and 101 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.