Claimant v INEOS Infrastructure (Grangemouth) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the investigation was unreasonable as the same officer conducted both the investigation and disciplinary hearings, contrary to ACAS guidance, and had predetermined the outcome before the disciplinary hearings. The employer did not have reasonable grounds for belief in misconduct at the time belief was formed. Dismissal for car charging using personal cables at portacabins outside the hazardous zone, with no prior prohibition until November 2023, and no subsequent offending, was outside the band of reasonable responses given length of service, clean records, and that the conduct did not equate to gross misconduct in the Policy.
The tribunal found insufficient evidential basis for the positive case that dismissal was for trade union membership or use of trade union services. Although all claimants were Unite members and one was a safety representative, the employer did not know who was a union member as a matter of course. The claimants did not raise union membership as the reason at the disciplinary or appeal stages, and did not uniformly advance it at tribunal. The tribunal concluded the decision maker's prejudgment was driven by outrage at the allegations, not anti-union sentiment, and that the employer established a conduct-related reason for dismissal.
Facts
Four employees at INEOS Grangemouth refinery and petrochemical site (a top-tier COMAH site) were dismissed for gross misconduct after admitting to charging their electric cars using their own cables at portacabins in the Jetty area. The portacabins were outside the fenced hazardous zone, on a road with controlled public access, and used by contractors who charged tools and equipment. No prohibition existed until a November 2023 email, after which all claimants stopped. The allegations arose from a dismissed employee (GB) who had failed a drugs/alcohol test and made various allegations against colleagues, including union members. All claimants were Unite members; one was a safety representative. They had long service and clean disciplinary records.
Decision
The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claims succeeded but the automatic unfair dismissal claims (trade union reasons) failed. The investigation was flawed because the same manager (CS) conducted both investigation and disciplinary hearings and had predetermined guilt and dismissal before the hearings. Dismissal was outside the band of reasonable responses given no prior prohibition, clean records, long service, no repeat offending after November 2023, and the portacabins' location outside hazardous areas. The tribunal found insufficient evidence that trade union membership was the real reason for dismissal.
Practical note
Even where misconduct is admitted, an employer must conduct a procedurally fair investigation without prejudgment, and the sanction must be proportionate: dismissal for a first offence of car charging outside hazardous areas with no prior clear prohibition, clean records, and no repetition was outside the reasonable range despite the sensitive COMAH site context.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8002168/2024
- Decision date
- 17 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Availability Technician / Deputy Shift Manager
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister