Case 4102908/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Member J Lindsay Tribunal Member S Singh Ms A Nicholl v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4102908/2022
- Decision date
- 13 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Murphy Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- J Lindsay, S Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member J Lindsay Tribunal Member S Singh Ms A Nicholl
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal allowed the victimisation complaint to proceed out of time, finding it just and equitable to extend time given the claimant's lack of computer literacy, her attempts to raise matters internally and with ACAS, and the limited prejudice to the respondent. The victimisation claim was dismissed because the tribunal found that none of the alleged acts relied on by the claimant amounted to a protected act under section 27 Equality Act 2010.
On constructive unfair dismissal, the tribunal considered the claimant's complaints about proposed changes to her working hours, the incident on 11 February 2022 when she was sent home, and the later disciplinary process. It found that discussions about working hours did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. It found that sending the claimant home on 11 February 2022 for perceived lack of productivity, and then failing to discuss the matter with her afterwards, did breach that implied term.
However, the tribunal found the claimant did not resign in response to that breach, but because she feared dismissal for gross misconduct and possible effects on her pension after the later disciplinary allegations. It also found that she had affirmed the contract after the 11 February breach by continuing to work and not pursuing the grievance further. The disciplinary suspension and investigation in March 2022 were found to have reasonable and proper cause and did not revive or contribute to the earlier breach. The breach of contract claim was therefore also dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | Time was extended on a just and equitable basis, but the tribunal found the claimant had not done a protected act for the purposes of section 27 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence in relation to sending the claimant home on 11 February 2022 and failing to engage with her afterwards, but the claimant affirmed the contract and did not resign in response to that breach. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The breach of contract claim was framed as wrongful constructive dismissal and notice pay. It failed because the claimant did not resign in response to an outstanding breach, had affirmed the contract, and had no financial loss from the antecedent breach found. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
26 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Igen v Wong
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- s.95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Excavating Ltd v Sharp
- Malik v BCCI SA
- Baldwin v Brighton and Hove City Council
- Firth Accountants Ltd v Law
- Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council
- Tullet Prebon Plc v BGC Brokers LP
- Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council
- Working Men's Club and Institute Ltd v Balls
- East Berkshire Health Authority v Matadeen
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- Williams v Alderman Davies Church in Wales Primary School
- Chindove v William Morrison Supermarkets Ltd
- Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (Scotland) Order 1994
- Johnson v Unisys
- Eastwood v Magnox Electric Plc
- Rawlinson v Brightside Group Ltd
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.