Case 2601420/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Morrow v Wilko Retail Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601420/2019
- Decision date
- 22 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Morrow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the respondent had established conduct as the reason for dismissal. It accepted that the claimant had called a colleague a "retard" on more than one occasion on 24 January 2019 and, at a disciplinary meeting on 1 March 2019, had thrown his work gloves in the direction of the chair and used abusive language before leaving the meeting.
The tribunal held that the respondent had a genuine belief in the misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and had carried out a reasonable investigation. It also held that the later disciplinary invitation warned that dismissal could follow and that a decision could be made in the claimant's absence if he did not attend, which is what occurred when he failed to attend on 15 March 2019.
On the claimant's pleaded case, the tribunal accepted that the respondent was contractually required to confirm the outcome in writing and offer a right of appeal. It found that the dismissal letter dated 15 March 2019 did both, that it was sent by recorded delivery to the correct address, and that the claimant deliberately failed to collect it. The tribunal concluded that the dismissal was not rendered unfair by non-receipt of the letter and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses, particularly because the 1 March incident was sufficient on its own to justify dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment determines the unfair dismissal claim only. Although the claimant relied on alleged contractual breaches about written notification and appeal, the tribunal addressed those matters within the unfair dismissal analysis rather than as a separate breach of contract award. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- band of reasonable responses
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.