Claimant v Rotable Repairs Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim succeeded on procedural grounds because the Claimant should have been provided with the outcome of Mr French's conversation with the testing facility and his internet research. However, the tribunal found the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event due to genuine belief in misconduct following reasonable investigation, making dismissal within the band of reasonable responses.
Facts
The Claimant was dismissed following a positive drug test for cocaine. The dismissal was found to be procedurally unfair because the Claimant was not shown the outcome of Mr French's conversation with the testing facility or his internet research before the disciplinary hearing. However, the Respondent had a Drug & Alcohol Policy with zero tolerance for drug usage, and evidence showed similar cases resulted in dismissal unless employees self-referred. The Claimant did not self-refer.
Decision
This is a reconsideration judgment refusing the Claimant's second application to reconsider. The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of varying the original decision. Although the unfair dismissal claim succeeded on narrow procedural grounds, the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event (100% Polkey reduction), making reinstatement unjust and equitable. New arguments raised only at reconsideration stage were rejected.
Practical note
A procedural unfair dismissal finding does not guarantee remedy where a 100% Polkey reduction applies and the employee's own gross misconduct wholly caused the dismissal, making reinstatement inappropriate under s.116 ERA 1996.
Adjustments
The Claimant would certainly have been fairly dismissed in any event even if the procedural failing had not occurred
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6005079/2024
- Decision date
- 15 January 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No