Sacked over a tan: Waitrose couple lose race discrimination case after secret holiday

Peter Hedger and Katerina Dimitrova lost their jobs with the supermarket, owned by the John Lewis Partnership, after going on an unauthorised trip abroad, an employment tribunal heard.

MailOnline reported that the pair claimed they were discriminated against because of their 'tanned skin'.

However, the tribunal found they were sacked for extending their holiday to Miss Dimitrova's home country of Bulgaria when they should have been at work.

The tribunal, held virtually in Birmingham, was told: "The (couple) put in a leave request for 2 September 2023 which was refused.

"They then made a contact with their branch on a number of occasions between 9 September 2023 and 28 October 2023.

"On none of these occasions did they mention that they were abroad and it was only after they returned to the UK that they disclosed that they had travelled to Bulgaria towards the end of August 2023."

The retailer's position was that the couple "had been dismissed for gross misconduct namely, unauthorised absence", the tribunal was told.

Read more: Search for missing mother-of-three Rachel Booth enters its third day

Read more: London Waterloo station hit by 'major signalling failure' as commuters warned 'do not travel'

It added: "On appeal the appeal officer had concluded that the evidence showed that the (couple) had not been open and honest with their branch about the reasons for absence, had not let their managers know of the absence at the soonest opportunity and had not informed their managers that they would be in Bulgaria.

"Unauthorised absence was listed as an example of gross misconduct (in John Lewis)'s handbook."

Whilst aboard without permission from their bosses, the couple claimed they were house hunting in the UK.

Mr Hedger said the situation had arisen because the pair had nowhere to live, adding that "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".

Employment Judge Naeema Choudry said: "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.

"As such, a claim based on Ms Dimitrova's Bulgarian nationality has no reasonable prospects of success and is struck out.

"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."

The couple's discrimination and harassment claims on the grounds of race were thrown out because "they have no reasonable prospect of success".

Their unfair dismissal claims were also struck out.

Ms Dimitrova's claim relating to the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and appeal hearings will be heard at a tribunal on a later date.

Kate Palmer, Employment Services Director at Peninsula, told LBC the case highlighted "the potential risks involved when dealing with unauthorised absence".

Ms Palmer said: "Unauthorised absence can occur for a variety of reasons. It’s important for employers to not to have a knee-jerk approach but to deal with it carefully, ensuring they carry out as much investigation into the cause and circumstances as they can before taking any action and if they have a policy, ensure that they follow it.

“Whilst the claims for discrimination on a number of grounds were struck out in this case, it does highlight the potential risks involved when dealing with unauthorised absence.

"If there is an underlying reason that might be linked to a protected characteristic, it is important for employers to explore this further and satisfy themselves the reason for the dismissal is not directly or indirectly because of this.

“In this instance, the judge agreed that after an investigation, and in line with the respondent’s handbook listing unauthorised absence as gross misconduct, the decision was made to dismiss the individuals because of their unauthorised absence, and not because of their protected characteristics.”