Case 2502345/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C West v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502345/2019
- Decision date
- 5 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
- Panel members
- Mrs C Hunter, Mr J Weatherston
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C West
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously held that several of the claimant's complaints were well founded. It found that the respondent contravened the Equality Act 2010 by requiring the claimant to work his contracted hours over 5 days per week rather than 3, and that it subjected him to disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 by proceeding with a formal absence management procedure and by dismissing him in May 2019.
The Tribunal also upheld the complaints of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and holiday pay. The parties agreed that £425.21 was owed for holiday pay, and the respondent was ordered to pay that sum.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not well founded and were dismissed. Remedy for the Equality Act complaints, unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal was reserved to a separate remedy hearing. Oral reasons were given at the hearing, with written reasons to be provided only if requested.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records well-founded Equality Act 2010 complaints about requiring the claimant to work contracted hours over 5 days rather than 3, proceeding with a formal absence management procedure under s15, and dismissing him in May 2019 under s15. The remedy for these complaints was reserved to a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded. Remedy was reserved to a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The complaint of wrongful dismissal was well founded. Remedy was reserved to a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The parties agreed that £425.21 was owing in respect of holiday pay. | Upheld | — | £425 |
| Age discrimination | The gov.uk listing identifies age discrimination as a category. The judgment states that all other complaints were not well founded and dismissed, but the extracted judgment does not individually identify those dismissed complaints. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing identifies Working Time Regulations as a category. The judgment states that all other complaints were not well founded and dismissed, but the extracted judgment does not individually identify those dismissed complaints. |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £425
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s15 Equality Act 2010
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.
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.