Train operator dismissed for refusing hair follicle drug test: dismissal fair
A London Underground train operator was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after refusing to provide a hair sample for drug testing, the tribunal has ruled.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #hair-follicle-test
- #safety-critical-role
- #gross-misconduct
- #zero-tolerance-drugs-policy
- #false-medical-declaration
- #transport-and-works-act
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Customer Service Assistant and later promoted to Train Operator, both safety-critical roles.
- The claimant had a history of cocaine use and depression, which he dishonestly failed to disclose on medical questionnaires in 2015 and 2021.
- In December 2021, the claimant refused to provide a hair sample for drug testing requested by Occupational Health.
- The claimant was summarily dismissed on 15 August 2022 for gross misconduct due to his refusal to take the hair test.
- The Employment Tribunal found the dismissal fair, as the employer acted reasonably in treating the refusal as gross misconduct.
Timeline
-
Claimant submits false medical questionnaire
The claimant completed a medical history questionnaire for his job application, falsely denying any history of depression, drug or alcohol problems.
-
Claimant starts employment as Customer Service Assistant
The claimant began working for London Underground in a safety-critical role.
-
Claimant submits false medical questionnaire for promotion
The claimant applied for promotion to Train Operator and again falsely denied any drug or alcohol problems.
-
GP discloses claimant's cocaine history
The claimant's GP wrote to Occupational Health revealing a history of cocaine use, prompting further investigation.
-
Unannounced urine test attempted
The claimant was asked to provide a urine sample but failed to do so within two hours; the tester left due to parking issues.
-
Claimant provides negative urine sample
After three days' notice, the claimant provided a urine sample that tested negative for drugs.
-
Claimant refuses hair follicle test
Occupational Health requested a hair sample; the claimant refused, citing policy grounds after consulting his union representative.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was suspended from work pending investigation into his refusal to take the hair test.
-
Disciplinary hearing
At the hearing, the claimant offered to take a hair test, but the offer was not accepted as over four months had passed.
-
Claimant summarily dismissed
The claimant was dismissed without notice for gross misconduct due to his refusal to undergo the hair follicle test.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's refusal to provide a hair sample for drug testing, as requested by Occupational Health, amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal, and whether the dismissal was fair under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, finding that London Underground had acted reasonably.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant had a history of cocaine use and had dishonestly failed to disclose this on medical questionnaires.
- He refused to provide a hair sample for testing, despite being in a safety-critical role where the employer had a zero-tolerance policy on drugs.
- The employer's decision to dismiss for gross misconduct fell within the range of reasonable responses.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees in safety-critical roles should expect strict compliance with drug testing policies, and refusal to cooperate can be treated as gross misconduct.
- Dishonesty on medical questionnaires can undermine an employee's credibility and strengthen the employer's case for dismissal.
- Employers should ensure their drug testing policies are clearly communicated and consistently applied, especially in roles where public safety is at stake.
- A refusal to undergo a drug test, even if based on policy concerns, can be a fair reason for dismissal if the employer has a reasonable basis for the request.
This case highlights the importance of complying with drug testing policies in safety-critical roles. The claimant, a train operator for London Underground, was dismissed after refusing to provide a hair sample for drug testing. The tribunal found that the employer acted reasonably, given the zero-tolerance policy and the need to ensure public safety.
What went wrong for the claimant
The claimant had a history of cocaine use and had dishonestly denied this on medical questionnaires when applying for his job and later for promotion. When Occupational Health requested a hair follicle test, he refused, citing policy grounds. By the time of the disciplinary hearing, he offered to take the test, but over four months had passed, making the test less reliable. The tribunal noted that the employer's decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses, particularly given the safety-critical nature of the role and the legal obligations under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
What the employer did right
London Underground had clear policies on drug testing, which were negotiated with unions and communicated to employees. The employer followed a fair process, including suspension, investigation, a disciplinary hearing, and an appeal. The tribunal found no procedural unfairness and noted that the claimant's refusal to cooperate was a clear breach of the policy.
Key takeaway for similar cases
This case serves as a reminder that employees in safety-critical roles must cooperate with reasonable drug testing requests. Refusal can lead to dismissal, even if the employee later changes their mind. Employers should ensure their policies are clear and consistently applied, and that they follow a fair process before dismissing for misconduct.
Similar cases
Train driver dismissed after positive cannabis test: zero-tolerance policy upheld
An employment tribunal has ruled that Arriva Rail London fairly dismissed a train driver of 10 years who tested positive for cannabis metabolites in a random drug test, rejecting his defence that the result was caused by CBD oil.
Dismissed for failing to complete drug treatment: a conduct decision that was fair
A Customer Services Supervisor for London Underground was fairly dismissed after being discharged from residential drug rehabilitation for threatening behaviour. The tribunal found the employer's investigation and decision were within the range of reasonable responses.
Bus engineer dismissed for telling driver to continue with brake fault
A tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a bus engineer with 16 years' service who told a driver to continue driving despite a brake shudder. The decision confirms that safety-critical roles require strict compliance.
Dismissed over a private Facebook post: when does social media cross the line?
A care worker was sacked for gross misconduct after a Facebook comment about a colleague. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair — but reduced compensation by 25% for contributory conduct.