Claimant v Tesco Stores Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did not have a pretty good chance of establishing that he was designated under s.100(1)(a) ERA 1996 to carry out health and safety activities, having only a general duty as an employee. The claimant acknowledged he was not directly designated for such activities and was not a health and safety representative.
Although the claimant relied on 999 calls to police, an anonymous call to Tesco Protect Line, and a grievance, the tribunal found he would face difficulties establishing that factual information was disclosed in the public interest with the requisite reasonable beliefs. More significantly, even if protected disclosures were made, the tribunal found no pretty good chance of proving they were the reason for dismissal, given the timing and the dismissing officer's limited knowledge of the grievance.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Customer Assistant at Tesco from December 2023 until his summary dismissal on 15 August 2025 for gross misconduct. He lacked the two-year qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal. On 21 July 2025, there was a significant incident where the claimant refused to go to the office when directed, refused to leave the shop, and had to be escorted off premises by police. The claimant had made 999 calls to police in March and July 2025, an anonymous call to Tesco Protect Line in June 2025, and lodged a grievance on 4 July 2025, all relating to alleged bullying and harassment. He applied for interim relief under three heads: health and safety designation, whistleblowing, and blacklisting.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the application for interim relief, finding the claimant did not have a pretty good chance of success on any ground. He was not specifically designated for health and safety activities, only having a general employee duty. There was no evidence of a prohibited blacklist. Even if protected disclosures were made, the dismissing officer had limited knowledge of the grievance and the dismissal was clearly connected to the gross misconduct on 21 July 2025, not the disclosures.
Practical note
Interim relief applications require a 'pretty good chance' of success (higher than balance of probabilities), and tribunals will scrutinise whether alleged protected disclosures were genuinely the reason for dismissal, particularly where there is clear evidence of serious misconduct justifying dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6031159/2025
- Decision date
- 22 January 2026
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Tesco Colleague (Customer Assistant)
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No