Craig Pinder v Amazon UK Services Ltd Heard: in Sheffield on 29 and 30 June and 1 and 2 July 2026 — 2026

Craig Pinder was employed by Amazon UK Services Ltd as a Sortation Associate from 5 July 2020 until his dismissal on 12 May 2025. He injured his left elbow at work in May 2024. The Tribunal found that this caused a physical impairment and affected activities involving his left arm, but did not have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. He remained able to perform ordinary activities using his right arm and had worked in a physically demanding role for approximately three and a half months after the accident. At the relevant dates in September and October 2024, three occupational health reports had also assessed the condition as unlikely to last for at least 12 months. The Tribunal therefore found that he was not disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

Because the claimant did not meet the statutory definition of disability, his claim that the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed. The proposed adjustment was to permit him to continue working on Dock or undertake other light or amended duties that did not require lifting or twisting with his left arm.

At an absence-review meeting on 20 March 2025, the claimant said that he had taken legal advice and was pursuing a claim concerning his elbow injury. The Tribunal found that he did not say that the respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments. It also found that his disclosure about the personal injury claim was made entirely in his own interest and that the public interest was not in his mind. He had therefore not made a protected disclosure within the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The victimisation claim was dismissed because the claimant had not done a protected act within section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. His reference to a personal injury claim was not linked to the Equality Act, and the Tribunal found that he had not alleged a failure to make reasonable adjustments. The claim also failed because Valerie Birks, who decided to dismiss him, did not know about the personal injury claim or what had been discussed at the meeting on 20 March 2025.

The Tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was the claimant's positive test for cocaine and benzoylecgonine, which the respondent treated as gross misconduct. It accepted that the dismissing and appeal managers genuinely believed that he had taken cocaine, had reasonable grounds for that belief based on the external test result, and had conducted a reasonable investigation, including asking the testing company whether his prescribed medication could have produced the result. The claimant's reference to his personal injury claim did not influence the dismissal decision.

The Tribunal described the requirement that the claimant pay approximately £217 for a retest as harsh and found that the lengthy delay between the July 2024 test and the March 2025 investigation caused him prejudice. It nevertheless concluded that the absence of a retest and the delay did not take the investigation or procedure outside the range of reasonable responses. The respondent followed investigation, disciplinary and appeal stages, and dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses given its published zero-tolerance drugs policy, its consistent treatment of positive tests and the safety-critical workplace. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. As all substantive claims failed, the Tribunal did not consider remedy and made no monetary award.