Case 3201672/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Pamment v Renewi UK Services Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201672/2020
- Decision date
- 18 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Pamment
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr Pamment was unfairly dismissed by Renewi UK Services Ltd after a random drugs test on 11 March 2020 produced a non-negative result for cannabis. He was dismissed summarily on 1 April 2020 following a disciplinary hearing on 30 March 2020. The tribunal accepted that he had taken cannabis from December 2019 to help with acute and chronic back pain and sleep, and found that this was not challenged by the respondent.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's main justification that Mr Pamment was 'under the influence' of cannabis in a way that affected his work or created the asserted driving risk. It found there was no evidence his performance had been adversely affected, that he was not required to drive a van as part of his role in practice, and that he worked as a driver's mate. It also found that the respondent had not raised any concerns about his work after he returned from long-term sickness absence on 6 January 2020, and that no proper return-to-work meeting had taken place after that six-month absence.
The tribunal found that the dismissal decision was influenced by HR information that everyone who had failed a drugs test had left the company, and that this approach meant the respondent did not carry out an individual assessment of Mr Pamment's circumstances. It also found that insufficient weight was given to his long service, his reason for using cannabis, his offer of regular testing at his own expense, and the respondent's own policies which referred to support and rehabilitation for employees with substance misuse problems. The tribunal concluded that dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses and that no Polkey reduction or contributory conduct reduction should be made. A remedy hearing was to follow, and the claimant sought reinstatement or re-engagement.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Liability only; a separate remedy hearing was to be listed. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Home Stores Limited v Burchell
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
- ACAS Code of Practice
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.