Case 8001120/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Thomson v Asda Stores Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8001120/2024
- Decision date
- 31 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Campbell
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Thomson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was summarily dismissed after a customer complaint about his conduct during a delivery on 27 April 2024. The tribunal found that the respondent had shown conduct was the reason for dismissal, rejecting the claimant's belief that the dismissal was connected to a letter he had written about accrued holidays. The tribunal found the dismissing manager was unaware of that letter and relied on the claimant's conduct during the delivery.
Applying the conduct dismissal authorities, the tribunal found that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a reasonable investigation. The claimant had admitted using profanity in sight of the customer, and the tribunal found no further investigation was required on the central facts. It also found that dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses, although another sanction could also have been open to the employer.
On wages and holiday pay, the tribunal found the respondent's holiday-year rule was permissible and that payment in lieu was not required for unused leave at the end of the holiday year. The evidence showed the claimant had taken periods of leave and had the final two weeks of March 2024 treated as fully paid annual leave. The claimant could not show that further pay or holiday pay was due, so all complaints were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for the potentially fair reason of conduct and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the evidence did not show the claimant had been denied pay due to him, by unlawful deduction or otherwise. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal found the respondent was not obliged to pay for accrued but unused holidays at the end of the holiday year and that, on the evidence, the claimant had taken and been paid for his full entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 98(1) and (2) ERA
- section 98(4) ERA
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- band of reasonable responses
- British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- section 13 ERA
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regulations 13 and 13A
- Working Time Regulations 1998 regulation 14
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.