Case 2601396/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Melville v Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc Heard: via Cloud Video Platform and in person — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601396/2020
- Decision date
- 21 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Melville
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Melville was employed by Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc as the Store Manager at Loughborough from 31 July 2017 until his summary dismissal on 18 December 2019. The tribunal found that food and other high-risk stock had been stored in the outside yard contrary to the respondent’s food safety requirements, that Rentokil found rat activity and damage to goods, and that products worth about £5,100 had to be wasted. The claimant accepted in interview that the yard was poor and that an environmental health visit could have led to closure of the store and prosecution.
The tribunal accepted the respondent’s case that the reason for dismissal was conduct, not cost-cutting or the 2020 management restructure. It found that Mr Fellows genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of gross misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal noted the Rentokil report, photographs, and witness evidence from colleagues, and found that the claimant knew about the state of the yard and the rat problem but did not report it.
The tribunal held that the disciplinary process was, on balance, fair. The claimant was told the allegations, supplied with relevant documents, warned dismissal was possible, and given an appeal. Although there was delay in concluding the appeal, the tribunal found that this did not make the dismissal unfair and that, even without the delay, the same decision would have been reached. Applying the statutory fairness test and the range of reasonable responses approach, the tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses and dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the reason for dismissal was conduct, namely serious negligence by allowing perishable stock to be stored in the outside yard, leading to a rat infestation, £5,100 of wasted stock, and a serious breach of health and food safety. No remedy was awarded because the claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- range of reasonable responses
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
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.