EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4107434/2024 Held in Glasgow on and July 2025 Employment Judge N M Hosie Mr B O’Connor v Represented by: Ms J Barnett, Holly Blue Employment Law The Watches of Switzerland Group plc — 2025

The claimant, Mr Blaine O’Connor, was employed by The Watches of Switzerland Group Plc as Sales Floor Manager at the Rolex Boutique in Glasgow from 10 August 2009 until 23 August 2024. After an anonymous Safecall complaint on 29 July 2024 alleging that he had been drinking alcohol at work, the respondent reviewed CCTV footage, suspended him on 1 August 2024, and investigated additional allegations said to have occurred on 30 March 2024 and 5 April 2024 as well as the CCTV incident on 27 July 2024. A disciplinary hearing took place on 23 August 2024 and the claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct; his appeal was then rejected on 5 November 2024.

The tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses as measured, consistent, and convincing, and found parts of the claimant’s evidence inconsistent and not credible. It held that the decision makers, Boyd Anderson and Ashok Pankhania, genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct and had reasonable grounds for that belief. Applying s.98(1) and s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, together with the Burchell guidance, Iceland Frozen Foods, Taylor v OCS Group Ltd, and the ACAS Code, the tribunal concluded that the respondent had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable in all the circumstances.

The tribunal found that the evidence, including CCTV and witness statements, showed the claimant drinking alcohol at work while in charge of the Boutique and requesting colleagues to pour him drinks, and it rejected the submission that there was a workplace culture of alcohol consumption that rendered the dismissal unfair. It held that the claimant’s conduct breached the respondent’s Hospitality & Alcohol Policy and Code of Ethics, that he was in a managerial role expected to set the tone, and that summary dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses. The tribunal also noted that Mr Anderson gave the claimant the benefit of the doubt on the 30 March 2024 allegation because of insufficient medical evidence, but that did not affect the dismissal decision on the remaining allegations. The claim was dismissed.