Warehouse manager with 26 years' service unfairly dismissed over favouritism allegations
A warehouse manager with 26 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Tesco for alleged favouritism, but his race discrimination claim failed. The tribunal awarded £2,848.74 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #favouritism
- #delays
- #late-amendments
- #bank-holiday-swaps
- #inconsistent-discipline
- #predetermined-decision
Key facts
- The claimant was a warehouse team manager with 26 years' service and no prior disciplinary history.
- He was dismissed for allegedly showing favouritism to a subordinate, Ms Szabo, by keying in excessive delays, amending late records, and swapping bank holiday shifts.
- The claimant admitted the factual basis of the allegations but argued the practices were common and not improper.
- The disciplinary chair, Mr Maloney, had previously investigated the matter and was not impartial, leading to procedural unfairness.
- Comparators (Elliston and Cox) were treated more leniently for similar or more serious misconduct, showing inconsistency.
- The claimant did not raise race discrimination until the appeal stage, and the tribunal found no evidence of racial motivation.
Timeline
-
Late amendment for Ms Szabo
Claimant amended WFC to remove late record for Ms Szabo on 20 January 2021.
-
Late amendment for Ms Szabo
Claimant amended WFC to remove late record for Ms Szabo on 21 January 2021.
-
Late amendment for Ms Szabo
Claimant amended WFC to remove late record for Ms Szabo on 18 March 2021.
-
Late amendment for Ms Szabo
Claimant amended WFC to remove late record for Ms Szabo on 19 March 2021.
-
Late amendment for Ms Szabo
Claimant amended WFC to remove late record for Ms Szabo on 25 March 2021.
-
Bank holiday shift swap
Claimant swapped Ms Szabo to a bank holiday shift without business justification.
-
Excessive delays keyed
Claimant keyed in delays of several hours for Ms Szabo on 9 June 2021, though meetings lasted 1-2 hours.
-
Excessive delays keyed
Claimant keyed in delays of several hours for Ms Szabo on 10 June 2021.
-
Excessive delays keyed
Claimant keyed in delays of several hours for Ms Szabo on 11 June 2021.
-
Claimant suspended
Claimant was suspended pending investigation into allegations of favouritism.
-
Investigation meeting
Mr Berkshire interviewed the claimant for 3.5 hours as part of the investigation.
-
First disciplinary hearing
First disciplinary hearing chaired by Mr Maloney.
-
Second disciplinary hearing
Second disciplinary hearing chaired by Mr Maloney.
-
Third disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Third disciplinary hearing; Mr Maloney dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct.
-
First appeal hearing
First appeal hearing chaired by Ms Fairbrother.
-
Second appeal hearing
Second appeal hearing; claimant raised race discrimination for the first time.
-
Third appeal hearing
Third appeal hearing; Ms Fairbrother dismissed the appeal.
-
Substantive hearing begins
Employment tribunal hearing on liability began via CVP.
-
Substantive hearing ends
Employment tribunal hearing concluded.
-
Reserved judgment on liability
Tribunal issued reserved judgment finding unfair dismissal but no race discrimination.
-
Remedy judgment
Tribunal awarded £2,848.74 in compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was procedurally fair and whether the claimant's race was a factor in the decision to dismiss him.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the dismissal was unfair due to procedural flaws: the disciplinary chair had previously investigated the allegations, undermining impartiality, and the employer applied inconsistent discipline by treating other managers more leniently for similar or more serious misconduct. However, the tribunal rejected the race discrimination claim, finding no evidence that the claimant's race motivated the decision.
Compensation:
- Total award: £2,848.74 (no breakdown provided)
Lessons & takeaways
- Ensure the disciplinary chair is independent and has not been involved in the investigation to avoid bias.
- Apply disciplinary rules consistently; treating comparators more leniently can make a dismissal unfair.
- Long-serving employees with clean records are entitled to a fair process; procedural errors are more likely to render a dismissal unfair.
- Race discrimination claims require evidence of less favourable treatment because of race; inconsistency alone is not enough without a link to a protected characteristic.
What this case shows in practice
A warehouse manager with 26 years of unblemished service was dismissed by Tesco for allegedly showing favouritism to a subordinate. The manager admitted the factual basis of the allegations — keying excessive delays, amending late records, and swapping bank holiday shifts — but said these were common practices. The tribunal found that while the employer had genuine concerns, the way it handled the dismissal was flawed.
What the losing side could have done differently
The disciplinary chair had previously investigated the matter, creating a perception of bias. Tesco could have appointed a different manager to hear the disciplinary case. Additionally, the tribunal noted that two other employees (Elliston and Cox) were treated more leniently for similar or more serious misconduct. Consistent application of disciplinary rules would have strengthened the employer's position.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case highlights that even when an employee admits misconduct, procedural fairness is crucial — especially for long-serving staff. Employers must ensure impartial decision-makers and consistent treatment of comparators. The failure on race discrimination shows that inconsistency alone does not prove discrimination; there must be evidence linking the treatment to a protected characteristic.