Case 3213518/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nebojsa Marinkovic v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3213518/2020
- Decision date
- 2 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Nebojsa Marinkovic
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed from his role as a delivery driver after the respondent investigated an allegation that he had taken a can of Coke belonging to another employee. The tribunal found that the respondent's managers had an honest belief, based on reasonable grounds, that the claimant had committed theft, relying on the complaint from the colleague, CCTV evidence, and the claimant's admissions that he had taken the can and that it was not his.
The tribunal found that the respondent followed a fair and reasonable procedure. The claimant was invited to an investigation and disciplinary hearing, shown the CCTV evidence, given opportunities to respond, and was provided with a work colleague at the disciplinary hearing. The tribunal also found that the appeal was considered by a more senior manager with no previous involvement and that the appeal decision addressed the grounds raised.
The tribunal concluded that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses. It accepted that the respondent treated theft from a colleague as gross misconduct, that the claimant held a position of trust as a delivery driver, and that the value of the item did not make dismissal outside the reasonable range. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore not upheld and the claim was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal was not upheld and dismissed the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- BHS v Burchell [1980] ICR 303
- band of reasonable responses
- Foley v Post Office and HSBC Bank plc v Madden [2000] IRLR 3
- Sainsbury plc v Hitt [2003] ICR 111
- A v B [2003] IRLR 405
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd [2006] IRLR 613
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.