Mr A Vetesi v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2026

Mr Vetesi initially worked for Tesco Stores Limited from December 2022. He resigned to move to Dubai, and his employment ended on 30 April 2024 without any arrangement that it would continue. When he returned on 16 June 2024, he began a new period of employment and received a new employee number. The Tribunal held that Tesco had rebutted the presumption of continuity and that Mr Vetesi lacked the two years’ continuous service required for ordinary unfair dismissal. That claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Tesco dismissed Mr Vetesi for gross misconduct on 1 April 2025 after he took a damaged, wasted air fryer without processing it through a till. The Tribunal found that disciplinary officer Murray Leslie considered this to be theft and a loss of trust. Mr Leslie was unaware that Mr Vetesi was Romanian, and the protected disclosure later accepted by the Tribunal had not yet been made. Paul McCarter rejected the appeal on 22 April 2025 after considering the available information and alternatives to dismissal. The Tribunal did not determine the substantive fairness of the dismissal or any section 103A automatic unfair dismissal claim.

Mr Vetesi’s comments and grievance about his own difficulty taking breaks were not disclosures which he reasonably believed were in the public interest. His answer about written-off alcohol during the investigation meeting on 12 February 2025 also did not satisfy that requirement. The Tribunal did, however, find that his 11 April 2025 report to Falkirk Council’s licensing board was a protected disclosure under section 43B ERA 1996. It expressly made no finding that Tesco had breached licensing law or that the contents of the disclosure were true.

The alleged detriments preceding 11 April 2025 could not have resulted from that protected disclosure. Regarding the subsequent appeal, the Tribunal found that Mr Vetesi had the relevant documents, any ambiguity in the stock or returns policy was unrelated to the disclosure, and alternatives to dismissal had been considered. It therefore found no detriment caused by the protected disclosure and dismissed the section 47B claim.

For direct race discrimination, Mr Vetesi relied on the different treatment of Martin McAteer, who had taken biscuits after an unsuccessful till transaction but was dealt with informally. The Tribunal accepted that there was a difference in treatment but found no “something more” from which it could infer that the formal disciplinary process or dismissal was because of Mr Vetesi’s Romanian nationality. It found no evidence of race-related comments, negative stereotyping or negative views about Romanian people among those who initiated the disciplinary process. The claimant did not discharge the first-stage burden of proof, and the claim was dismissed.

The Working Time Regulations claim failed because Mr Vetesi could not identify particular shifts on which the required daily, weekly or in-shift rest had been denied, and the timesheets did not demonstrate the alleged breaches. His linked wages claim also failed because he did not identify relevant dates or pay periods or provide payslips or timesheets substantiating deductions for untaken breaks. The Tribunal also found that employees could request a pay adjustment when unable to take a break, but Mr Vetesi had not done so. Both claims were dismissed, and no monetary award was recorded.