A couple sued Waitrose for race discrimination after they came back from an illicit holiday with a tan.

Peter Hedger and Katerina Dimitrova were sacked from the supermarket for going on an unauthorised trip abroad, an employment tribunal heard.

They sued the upmarket retail giant, claiming that they were discriminated against because of their ‘tanned skin’.

00:15

02:24

Read More

However, the tribunal found that they were sacked for going on holiday to Miss Dimitrova’s home country of Bulgaria, and extending their stay without permission.

The tribunal, held virtually in Birmingham, heard that the couple worked at Waitrose, which is owned by John Lewis.

It 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.’

Peter Hedger and Katerina Dimitrova (pictured) sued the upmarket retail giant, claiming that they were discriminated against because of their ‘tanned skin’

But the tribunal found the pair (pictured) were sacked for going on holiday to Miss Dimitrova’s home country of Bulgaria, and extending their stay without permission

The tribunal heard the couple (pictured) had travelled to Bulgaria towards the end of August 2023

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

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.’

It appeared that the couple had claimed to be house hunting in the UK, when in fact they had extended their stay in Bulgaria.

A letter on the outcome of their appeal said: ‘I suspect you went to Bulgaria during your authorised leave and decided to stay longer.’

Mr Hedger told the tribunal that the situation had come about because neither he nor Miss Dimitrova had anywhere to live.

He added 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.

The tribunal panel said it was clear the couple (pictured) were ‘dismissed because they were perceived to be on holiday when they were supposed to be at work’

‘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.’

Their claims for discrimination and harassment on the grounds of race were struck out because ‘they have no reasonable prospect of success’.

Both of their claims for unfair dismissal have also been 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.