Claimant v Wickes Building Supplies Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal (conduct: the claimant admitted taking cocaine the night before work and refused a drug test, which the policy treated as a positive result). The tribunal concluded the respondent carried out a reasonable investigation, followed a substantially fair procedure, and dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses given the zero-tolerance Drugs & Alcohol Policy in a safety-critical retail environment and the claimant's live final written warning.
The tribunal accepted the claimant had ADHD as a disability. However, it found that singling her out for a drug test was not because of something arising from her disability. The decision was based on her unusually quiet behaviour that morning (contrasting with her normal loud, fast-paced manner), frequent toilet trips, a sudden change back to animated behaviour in the toilets, and discovery of suspected cocaine residue. The respondent did not know about the claimant's ADHD on 10 February 2024.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's ADHD involved emotional dysregulation which could place her at substantial disadvantage in unaccompanied investigatory meetings. However, the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know about the claimant's ADHD or the disadvantage on 10 February 2024. The claimant did not ask to be accompanied at the meetings on 10 or 15 February 2024, did not raise that she was emotionally dysregulated, and appeared able to process information and answer questions.
Facts
The claimant, a Duty Manager at Wickes, admitted taking a line of cocaine at 9pm and drinking a 75cl bottle of Malibu until 2-3am the night before her shift on 10 February 2024. She felt tired and 'ropey' at work. Her Operations Manager observed unusually quiet, unfocused behaviour in the morning, frequent toilet trips, then a sudden change to loud, chatty behaviour in the toilets. The manager discovered suspected cocaine residue on a toilet windowsill. After consulting Employee Relations, the claimant was asked to take a drug test but refused, knowing she would likely test positive. Under the respondent's zero-tolerance Drugs & Alcohol Policy, refusal is treated as a positive result. The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct. She had a live final written warning for unrelated misconduct. The claimant has ADHD but had not formally disclosed this to the respondent until during the investigation.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The unfair dismissal claim failed because the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct (cocaine use before work and refusal to test), reasonable grounds for that belief, conducted a reasonable investigation overall despite some procedural imperfections, and dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses given the safety-critical environment and zero-tolerance policy. The discrimination claims failed because the respondent did not know about the claimant's ADHD on 10 February 2024 and the decision to test her was based on observed behavioural changes and suspected drug residue, not symptoms of ADHD.
Practical note
Employers in safety-critical environments can enforce zero-tolerance drugs policies even where procedural imperfections exist, provided the overall investigation is reasonable; refusal of a drug test can lawfully be treated as a positive result; and disability discrimination claims require employer knowledge of the disability at the relevant time.
Adjustments
The tribunal stated that even if the dismissal had been found unfair (which it was not), the claimant's conduct was culpable and blameworthy: she took cocaine the night before her shift, mixing it with alcohol, in breach of safety policy. She refused the drug test believing she would test positive. The tribunal concluded she caused the dismissal and a 100% deduction to both basic and compensatory awards for contributory conduct would be just and equitable.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2313870/2024
- Decision date
- 18 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Duty Manager
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No