Case 3206667/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Davidson v National Express Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3206667/2021
- Decision date
- 11 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Illing Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Davidson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs J Davidson was dismissed by National Express Limited after three positive breath tests on 26 June 2021, with readings of 13, 10 and 8 mg/100ml. She said the results were caused by Listerine and antibiotics for a kidney infection, but the tribunal found the most plausible explanation was that she had consumed alcohol the previous evening. The respondent's alcohol and disciplinary policies treated a positive alcohol breath test as gross misconduct in a safety-critical driving role.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a reasonable investigation, including testing the potential effect of Listerine. The initial investigation and disciplinary stages were found to be in accordance with policy. However, the appeal process was flawed because the appeal officer did not properly consider the claimant's appeal points and did not keep an open mind. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint succeeded, although the tribunal found there was a 75% chance she would have been fairly dismissed in any event.
The breach of contract / wrongful dismissal claim failed. The tribunal held that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct and was sufficient to justify summary dismissal without notice under the respondent's policies and the contract terms. For remedy, the tribunal used a basic weekly pay figure of £542.18 for the basic award and £420.33 net weekly pay for compensation. It awarded a basic award of £1,016.82 after a 75% reduction for contributory conduct, and a compensatory award of £2,664.70 net comprising £2,383.56 for loss of earnings, £34.38 for loss of statutory rights and £246.76 for pension loss, producing a total award of £3,681.52.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissal found unfair because the appeal stage was procedurally flawed: the appeal officer did not properly address the claimant's appeal points or keep an open mind. The tribunal nevertheless found a 75% Polkey chance of fair dismissal in any event and applied 75% contributory conduct reduction and a 10% ACAS uplift to the award. | Upheld | — | £3,682 |
| Wrongful dismissal | Pled and determined as a breach of contract / wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay. The tribunal held that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct under the respondent's policies and justified summary dismissal without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,682
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £1,017
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,665
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
4 references- Burchell test
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- band of reasonable responses
- Polkey
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.