A couple have sued Waitrose after being sacked when they returned from an unauthorised holiday, claiming they were victims of racial discrimination because of their “tanned skin”.
Peter Hedger and Katerina Dimitrova were dismissed from the supermarket after extending their stay in Bulgaria, Ms Dimitrova’s home country, without permission from their employer. The pair claimed they were discriminated against due to their tanned appearance upon their return.
A Birmingham employment tribunal ruled against the couple, finding that their dismissal was justified based on unauthorised absence, not their skin colour.
Holiday Request Denied
The tribunal, held virtually in Birmingham, heard that the couple had submitted a leave request for 2 September 2023 which was refused by Waitrose management. Despite this refusal, they travelled to Bulgaria towards the end of August 2023.
The judge was told: “The [couple] put in a leave request for 2 September 2023 which was refused. They then made contact with their branch on a number of occasions between 9 September 2023 and 28 October 2023.”
Crucially, the tribunal heard that during these contacts with their workplace, neither Mr Hedger nor Ms Dimitrova mentioned they were abroad. It was only after they returned to the UK that they disclosed they had travelled to Bulgaria.
Gross Misconduct Finding
John Lewis, Waitrose’s parent company, maintained that the couple had been dismissed for gross misconduct in the form of unauthorised absence. The tribunal was told that unauthorised absence was listed as an example of gross misconduct in the company’s handbook.
An appeal officer concluded that the pair had not been “open and honest with their branch about the reasons for absence” and had failed to inform their managers “at the soonest opportunity” that they would be in Bulgaria.
A letter detailing the outcome of their appeal stated: “I suspect you went to Bulgaria during your authorised leave and decided to stay longer.”
Housing Difficulties Cited
Mr Hedger told the tribunal that the situation had arisen because the couple had nowhere to live in the UK. He explained that they were struggling to find accommodation and that neither he nor Ms Dimitrova had worked since their dismissal.
The tribunal heard: “Neither he nor Ms Dimitrova had worked since their dismissal as it was difficult for them to get work on the same shift, their financial means were not good and they had no income.”
Reports suggested the couple had claimed to be house-hunting in the UK whilst they were actually still in Bulgaria.
Judge Dismisses “Tanned Skin” Claims
Employment Judge Naeema Choudry comprehensively rejected the couple’s claims that their dismissal was linked to racial discrimination based on their tanned appearance or Ms Dimitrova’s Bulgarian nationality.
Judge Choudry stated: “The reason for dismissal was not due to the [couple] being in Bulgaria but because they were believed to be absent from work for no good reason and not to be house-hunting in the UK because they were abroad at the relevant time, having stayed abroad after a period of authorised annual leave.”
She added: “As such, a claim based on Ms Dimitrova’s Bulgarian nationality has no reasonable prospects of success and is struck out.
All Claims Struck Out
The judge was particularly clear about the “tanned skin” allegation, stating: “I am also satisfied that the allegation relating to ‘tanned skin’ has no reasonable prospects of success and should be struck out.”
“It is clear that the [couple] were dismissed because they were perceived to be on holiday when they were supposed to be at work and not because they had tanned skin,” Judge Choudry concluded.
Both discrimination and harassment claims on the grounds of race were thrown out because “they have no reasonable prospect of success”. The couple’s claims for unfair dismissal were also struck out by the tribunal.
Outstanding Claim
One element of Ms Dimitrova’s case remains unresolved. Her claim relating to the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and appeal hearings will be heard at a tribunal on a later date.
Company Response
When approached for comment, John Lewis declined to discuss individual cases. A spokeswoman for the partnership stated: “We would never discuss individuals so we are not making any comment.”
The case highlights the importance of transparency between employees and employers regarding leave arrangements and the serious consequences that can follow unauthorised absences from work.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
