Case 3202627/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Natalie McGonigle v Wm Morrisons Supermarkets Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202627/2021
- Decision date
- 15 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Natalie McGonigle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after the respondent investigated allegations that she pulled down a colleague's religious headscarf on 23 and 25 January 2021. The tribunal found that misconduct was the genuine reason for dismissal. The claimant admitted pulling down the headscarf on one occasion, and the respondent had witness evidence in relation to both occasions.
The tribunal found that the respondent conducted a full and thorough investigation, including witness interviews, a disciplinary hearing considered in the claimant's absence after she provided written representations, and an appeal hearing with further enquiries. It found that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, reasonable grounds for that belief, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal also found the procedure fair.
The claimant's claim for a Covid bonus, put as breach of contract or unlawful deduction from wages, was dismissed because she did not prove the basis of entitlement or quantify the amount said to be owed. The tribunal added that, even if the dismissal had been unfair, it would likely have made a 100% reduction for contributory conduct.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct, that the respondent had a genuine belief on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant alleged she was owed a Covid bonus at termination but did not prove the contractual basis, why it was owed, or the amount. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Covid bonus allegation was pleaded as breach of contract or unlawful deduction from wages; the tribunal dismissed it because entitlement and quantification were not proved. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- range of reasonable responses
- Sainsburys Supermarket Ltd v Hitt
- London Ambulance NHS Trust v Small
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- s.122(2) ERA 1996
- s.123(6) ERA 1996
- Jagex Ltd v McCambridge
- Steen v ASP Packaging Ltd
- Lemonious v Church Commissioners
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.