In person (via CVP) For the v Respondent — 2021

The claimant, who was 61 at the relevant time, alleged that Tesco discriminated against him because of age when he sought an internal transfer/promotion to a Dotcom driver role in November 2019. The tribunal found that he applied on 8 November 2019, was interviewed by Ms Wilkins on 25 November 2019, and then had to pass an internal driving assessment before any offer could be made. It rejected the case that Miss Eaton ignored his application or delayed it in any way that suggested age-related treatment, finding instead that she passed the application on and that the timing of the process was ordinary for the size of the organisation.

The tribunal also rejected the allegation that Miss Eaton interfered with the driving assessment or colluded with Mr March to engineer a fail. It found that Mr March carried out the assessment independently and in good faith on 2 December 2019, that the claimant did fail that assessment, and that documentary irregularities were explained as transcription errors. Because passing the driving assessment was a precondition to appointment, the tribunal found that the claimant was not appointed for that reason alone and that age played no part in the decision.

The claimant also relied on the respondent's handling of his grievance against Miss Eaton and his later complaint against Mr March. The tribunal found that some parts of the grievance were addressed within the ongoing grievance process, that some allegations were not capable of being investigated as framed, and that the remainder was not handled as well as it should have been because of a miscommunication involving Wendy Caruana. However, it accepted that explanation as an honest mistake and found that the same mishandling would have occurred regardless of age. Applying the section 13 and section 136 Equality Act framework, the tribunal held that the claimant had not established facts from which age discrimination could be inferred and dismissed the claim.