Mr Kevin Croft v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2026

Mr Croft remained employed by Tesco Stores Limited as a shift leader at its St Marks' Express store in Lincoln. He alleged that he had suffered detriments contrary to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because of a grievance dated 15 February 2024 concerning breaks and payment for breaks. He also brought unlawful-deduction complaints concerning unpaid breaks, meeting time and pay during sickness absence, which he regarded as a period of suspension.

The Tribunal found that the grievance contained sufficient factual content to amount to a disclosure of information. It did not accept, however, that Mr Croft genuinely believed when making it that the disclosure was in the public interest; alternatively, any such belief was not reasonable. The grievance concerned his own employment and, at most, the three shift leaders at the store, with no evidence that he then considered the matter to be a company-wide or industry-wide issue. Although he believed that the inability to take breaks endangered his health and safety, and a failure to provide breaks could breach a legal obligation, the Tribunal did not find the relevant belief reasonably held on the evidence. The grievance was therefore not a qualifying or protected disclosure, and the whistleblowing detriment complaints were dismissed.

For completeness, the Tribunal considered the nine alleged detriments. It did not find that store manager Paul McGrath responded aggressively on 17 February 2024. It found that Mr McGrath raised his own grievance because of the incident that day, the nature and volume of messages from Mr Croft and an alleged breach of the respondent's GDPR policy, and that Mr McGrath did not then know about Mr Croft's grievance. Mr Croft was sent home to de-escalate the situation but was not formally suspended, and this was not because of his grievance.

The delay before the grievance meeting was a detriment, but the Tribunal accepted that it resulted from Mr Croft's sickness absence, Lucy Blackwell's investigation and planned holiday rather than the grievance itself. The meeting addressed both grievances, and the Tribunal did not find that Ms Blackwell made the alleged dismissive remark about Mr Croft's mental health. The restriction on returning to the St Marks' store while the grievances were investigated was also a detriment, but arose from the nature of Mr McGrath's grievance. Mr Croft was not pressured to find a new role: he could return to his substantive post after the process or consider available alternatives. None of the matters considered in the alternative was found to have occurred because of the 15 February grievance.

The unpaid-break complaints were dismissed because Mr Croft did not establish the particular dates on which breaks were missed or provide sufficient evidence that qualifying breaks had been worked but not paid. The claimed £642.60 was not clearly connected to identified days, and some records showed no clocking-out time. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that six hours spent attending meetings in April 2024 were unpaid, because the relevant payslip recorded 24 hours' pay while Mr Croft was otherwise absent sick. It found that he was not formally suspended and had received the sick pay to which he was entitled.