Case 4100332/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Member Brown Tribunal Member Henderson Mr L Wilson v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 4100332/2023
- Decision date
- 13 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster Tribunal
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Brown, Tribunal Member Henderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member Brown Tribunal Member Henderson Mr L Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as an HGV driver and had retained pay following an earlier relocation. In February 2021, while absent through illness, he emailed acceptance of a buy-out of retained pay after being told the acceptance deadline was that day. The tribunal found that this agreement was clear and unambiguous and that the respondent was entitled to rely on it, so later non-payment of retained pay after August 2022 was not an unauthorised deduction from wages.
The tribunal found that one of the claimant's asserted disclosures, his letter of 20 April 2021 about retained pay and a Court of Session interdict, was a protected disclosure. The other asserted disclosures were not qualifying disclosures, principally because they related to the claimant's personal circumstances or did not disclose information. The protected disclosure did not materially influence the respondent's later actions, and it was not the sole or principal reason for dismissal, so the protected disclosure detriment and automatic unfair dismissal complaints were dismissed.
For constructive dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent's failure to progress the claimant's grievances, including the grievance of 15 September 2022, together with earlier failures to address grievances and the failure to respond to his request to change hours or work, cumulatively breached the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant resigned in response to that breach and had not affirmed the contract. The tribunal therefore found that he was constructively and unfairly dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was constructively dismissed and that the dismissal was unfair. | Upheld | — | £20,570 |
| Whistleblowing | The complaints of protected disclosure detriment under s47B ERA and automatically unfair dismissal under s103A ERA were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant had not demonstrated a contractual or legal entitlement to retained pay after August 2022. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,570
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £15,646
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £4,924
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
24 references- s43A ERA 1996
- s43B ERA 1996
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Simpson v Cantor Fitzgerald Europe
- s47B ERA 1996
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Fecitt and others v NHS Manchester
- Blackbay Ventures Ltd v Gahir
- s103A ERA 1996
- s94 ERA 1996
- s95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International Ltd
- Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust
- s98 ERA 1996
- s98(4) ERA 1996
- s13 ERA 1996
- New Century Cleaning Co Limited v Church
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd
- Acas Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- Slade and anor v Biggs and ors
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.