Case 4103203/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr William Watson v Argent Energy — 2024
- Case reference
- 4103203/2023
- Decision date
- 10 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R King
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr William Watson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr William Watson brought a claim of unfair dismissal arising from his dismissal by Argent Energy on 31 March 2023. The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct, namely that he was under the influence of marijuana while at work on Friday 3 and Saturday 4 March 2023, which the respondent treated as gross misconduct. The judgment records that the claimant denied the allegation and said it arose from a dispute with contract drivers, while the respondent relied on witness reports from logistics assistants and drivers who described a smell of marijuana and the claimant appearing to be under the influence.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent carried out a fair and thorough investigation. It heard that the investigation involved interviews with multiple witnesses, further enquiries after the disciplinary hearing was adjourned part-heard, and two fact-finding meetings with the claimant. The tribunal found the investigation to be even-handed and said it was directed at discovering the material facts rather than only evidence supporting dismissal. It also noted that the claimant had the chance to answer the allegations at each stage, including at the disciplinary meeting and appeal.
Although the disciplinary invitation referred to smoking marijuana on site and breach of trust and contracted hours, the tribunal found that the dismissal was ultimately for being under the influence of marijuana while at work. It accepted the respondent’s evidence that it genuinely believed the misconduct had occurred, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and was entitled to treat the conduct as gross misconduct in a workplace involving heavy machinery and chemicals. The tribunal found that the decision to dismiss fell within the band of reasonable responses and that the respondent complied with the Acas Code.
The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. The judgment records that the claimant found new employment the following week and remains in that employment. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant for conduct-related reasons, namely being under the influence of marijuana at work on 3 and 4 March 2023, and held the investigation and dismissal decision were fair. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores v Burchell
- Iceland Frozen Foods Limited v Jones
- section 207A TULR(C)A 1992
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services Limited
- Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures
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.