Gaurilcikiene v Tesco Stores Ltd
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE ARDEN
- LORD JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE
- MR JUSTICE BARLING
Areas of Law
- Employment Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appellant's grievance letter to Tesco alleging racial discrimination. Initial claims were dismissed by the Employment Tribunal, and further appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the current court were also dismissed. The main issues included the procedural handling of the grievance letter and whether prior decisions were binding on its receipt. The court found no procedural irregularity in the tribunal's actions and upheld the decision to dismiss the appellant's claims.
J U D G M E N T
LADY JUSTICE ARDEN: This is an appeal from the order of the Employment Appeal Tribunal dated 7 March 2013 dismissing the appellant's appeal from the order of the Employment Tribunal rejecting her claim for discrimination on the grounds of race. The judgment of the Employment Tribunal was sent out with reasons to the parties on 5 April 2011. I can take the facts from the judgment of my Lord, Rimer LJ:
"2. On 29 May 2009 a grievance letter was sent on the applicant's behalf to Tesco complaining of the way she had been treated. It was written by the law offices of Ogilvy and Ogilvy Associates, was sent to Tesco's head office at Cheshunt and was stated to have been copied by email to Ms Russell (an area personnel manager) and to Ms Byfield (a site manager at the Clifton Lee store, where the applicant worked). Tesco did not reply to the letter and the applicant asserted that its failure to do so was discriminatory on racial grounds and amounted to direct discrimination or victimisation.
3. Paragraph 21 of Tesco's ET3 admitted the raising of the grievance of 29 May, and so appeared to admit its receipt, although it said it reserved its right 'to amend these grounds on receipt of further particulars of the Claimant's claim'. Paragraph 30 denied that the applicant's grievances (she had also raised others) had not been properly investigated, and asserted that any 'failure to provide outcomes to [them] relate to the Claimant not being able to attend the meetings arranged to discuss her grievances and concerns'.
4. A pre-hearing review before Employment Judge Sage on 8 December 2009 resulted in a judgment binding on Tesco that the ET had jurisdiction to hear the applicant's race discrimination claims 'as a grievance was raised by [her] on 29 May 2009'.
5. At the substantive hearing before the Macinnes tribunal, the applicant was represented by a Mackenzie friend, Mr Michael. Tesco's stance in relation to the raising of the grievance appears by then to have changed. Paragraph 55 of the tribunal's reasons records (i) that it was Ms Byfield's evidence that she never received the grievance, and (ii) that Ms Russell's email address, to which the grievance letter had been copied, was said to have been incorrectly spelt so that it was not clear that the email could have been received by her either; and paragraph 56 recorded Tesco's concession that it had not dealt with the grievance letter, its explanation being that 'if it had received it, this