The claimant worked for the respondent Trust for 24 years. He had an impeccable disciplinary record prior to an event that took place in June 2015. He was put on precautionary suspension and a disciplinary investigation was initiated following an allegation that he had reported for work under the influence of alcohol. He made a full concession at the time and an investigation was commenced by the respondent’s personnel.

In his statement the claimant explained the circumstances surrounding the incident, namely, that his mother-in-law was terminally ill and his wife was also ill. The claimant attended the scheduled OH appointments and agreed to participate in an alcohol monitoring programme. The claimant later received a letter stating a disciplinary panel had been constituted to consider disciplinary sanctions up to and including dismissal.

The claimant consumed alcohol on occasions outside of work, e.g. on holiday and at a barbeque. He maintained he had engaged fully in the programme and was at no stage advised, or indeed required, to abstain from alcohol entirely. He was notified of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing by letter stating he should be dismissed from employment, receiving 12 weeks’ payment in lieu of notice, plus payment for outstanding annual leave. The panel expressed the view that the claimant’s actions did not constitute adherence to and commitment to the alcohol monitoring programme and questioned the claimant’s honesty and integrity. The claimant appealed the decision. The appeal panel said the claimant’s efforts to cancel the OH appointment the day after the disciplinary hearing was an attempt to misrepresent the claimant’s true level of alcohol consumption and that trust and confidence in the claimant had broken down.

At tribunal, the employment judge ruled the entire process did not fall within the band of reasonable responses of a reasonable employer and was not conducted in accordance with fair procedures. The claimant was unfairly dismissed and a hearing would be reconvened on remedy.

“The case epitomises not just an unfair process, firstly in terms of the extent and quality of the disciplinary investigation, secondly in regard to the fair and proper conduct of the (second) disciplinary hearing and, thirdly, the subsequent appeal, but the case also epitomises an element of confused and not entirely logical thinking, with an evident lack of clarity on the part of the respondent's personnel who were involved in the investigation and presentation of the disciplinary allegations…and the subsequent appeal”.
https://employmenttribunalsni.co.uk/OITFET_IWS/DecisionSearch.aspx