Mr I Issa Adam v Asda Stores Limited — 2023

The claimant was summarily dismissed after disciplinary proceedings arising from allegations that he had falsely accused a manager of race discrimination in relation to overtime allocation and had threatened a section leader with an ethics complaint if he did not receive overtime. The tribunal found that the respondent dismissed him for conduct, including its conclusion that he had knowingly made false allegations about overtime allocation and had made the threat to the section leader.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal found that the alleged 2019 ethics hotline disclosure was not proved. It found that the claimant made a protected disclosure on 16 March 2020 about overtime favouring white employees over Asian employees, but not about his own contracted hours. The tribunal concluded that disciplinary action was taken because the respondent considered the claimant had made false allegations he knew to be false, not because he had made the protected disclosure, and that the protected disclosure was not the reason or principal reason for dismissal.

On victimisation, the tribunal found that the March 2020 allegation of race discrimination was a protected act and was not made in bad faith, although the respondent had formed a different view. It concluded that the respondent proved the disciplinary process and dismissal were not materially because of the protected act, but because of its conclusion about the claimant's alleged misconduct. The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint was also dismissed because the tribunal found reasonable grounds and a reasonable investigation, taking the dismissal and appeal decisions together, and found dismissal within the band of reasonable responses.