Case 1300351/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Bartlam v Roxane (UK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1300351/2020
- Decision date
- 8 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Connolly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Bartlam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on 8 September 2020 before Employment Judge Connolly sitting alone. The claimant brought a single unfair dismissal claim against Roxane (UK) Limited. It was not in dispute that the respondent had a disciplinary policy treating being under the influence of illegal drugs during working hours as gross misconduct, that its substance misuse policy provided for random drug testing and a zero tolerance approach, and that the claimant tested positive for a cocaine metabolite and accepted that cocaine was in his system. It was also not in dispute that the claimant was dismissed because of that test result, and that dismissal would be fair if he had knowingly taken the drug.
The issues identified were whether the respondent had reasonable grounds to reject the claimant's explanation that his drink had been adulterated by or on behalf of a manager or other employee, and whether anything said by the appeal manager at the outset of the appeal hearing about the claimant's tribunal claim rendered the dismissal unfair. The tribunal recorded that the respondent considered the explanation inherently implausible but still investigated the possibility of drugging at work, including obtaining a signed statement from a manager who had reviewed CCTV of the forklift truck where the claimant kept his drink and saw no suspicious activity.
The tribunal also found that neither the manager nor any other employee knew when the random drug test would be carried out, so there was no obvious opportunity to adulterate the drink within the relevant period. It noted that the appeal manager later sent a detailed letter setting out the reasoned basis of the decision. On that basis, the tribunal held that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success and made a deposit order of £300 as a condition of the claimant being permitted to continue to advance the unfair dismissal claim. If the deposit was not paid by 2 October 2020, the claim would stand dismissed without further order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal made a deposit order of £300 on the basis that the unfair dismissal claim had little reasonable prospect of success. The claim had not been finally determined on the merits; the tribunal noted it would stand dismissed without further order only if the deposit was not paid by 2 October 2020. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- little reasonable prospect of success
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.