Unfairly dismissed for failing a drug test due to undiagnosed condition: tribunal orders reinstatement
A team leader at Network Rail was unfairly dismissed after a flawed drug and alcohol test failed to account for his undiagnosed medical condition. The tribunal ordered reinstatement, which the employer refused, leading to a compensation award of £89,861.86.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #gross-misconduct
- #drug-and-alcohol-testing
- #medical-condition
- #reinstatement
- #sentinel-scheme
- #practicability
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to provide a urine sample during a drug and alcohol test.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the claimant had an undiagnosed medical condition (paruresis) that prevented him from providing a sample.
- The claimant had offered to provide a blood sample as an alternative, which was refused.
- The respondent opposed reinstatement, citing loss of trust and concerns about the Sentinel Scheme rules.
- The tribunal ordered reinstatement, finding it practicable despite the respondent's objections.
- The respondent refused to comply with the reinstatement order, resulting in a compensatory and additional award.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as an apprentice with Network Rail.
-
Drug and alcohol test
Claimant was unable to provide a urine sample due to undiagnosed paruresis; offered blood sample but was refused.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct for failing to provide a urine sample.
-
Temporary factory work
Claimant secured temporary work in a factory, which ended due to Covid lockdown.
-
Employment at Amazon
Claimant started as an Operations Supervisor at Amazon.
-
Liability hearing (day 1)
Tribunal heard evidence on liability for unfair dismissal.
-
Liability hearing (day 2)
Tribunal concluded claimant was unfairly dismissed and gave oral reasons.
-
First remedy hearing
Adjourned due to respondent raising new ground about Sentinel Scheme.
-
Second remedy hearing
Tribunal heard evidence on reinstatement and reserved judgment.
-
Reinstatement order
Tribunal ordered reinstatement of claimant as Team Leader Track Inspections.
-
Further remedy hearing
Tribunal determined financial awards due to respondent's refusal to reinstate.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it was practicable to order the respondent to reinstate the claimant, considering the respondent's objections based on loss of trust and the Sentinel Scheme rules.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair and ordered reinstatement, which the respondent refused. The tribunal then awarded compensation of £89,861.86, comprising:
- Basic award: £3,675.00
- Compensatory award: £58,486.86
- Additional award for refusal to reinstate: £27,700.00 (not separately itemised but included in total)
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must consider medical conditions that may affect an employee's ability to comply with testing procedures, even if undiagnosed at the time.
- Refusing a reasonable alternative (e.g., a blood sample) can undermine a dismissal for failure to provide a urine sample.
- Reinstatement can be ordered even in safety-critical roles if the employer's objections are not well-founded.
- Failure to comply with a reinstatement order can lead to significant additional compensation.
A flawed drug test leads to unfair dismissal
This case highlights the importance of considering medical conditions in disciplinary processes. The claimant, a team leader with over nine years' service, was dismissed for gross misconduct after failing to provide a urine sample during a random drug and alcohol test. He had an undiagnosed condition called paruresis, which made it impossible for him to urinate on demand. He offered to provide a blood sample instead, but Network Rail refused.
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the employer did not properly investigate the claimant's inability to provide a sample and ignored compelling mitigation. The decision was based on an unsustainable finding of culpable conduct.
Reinstatement ordered despite employer objections
The claimant sought reinstatement, which the tribunal granted, finding it practicable despite Network Rail's objections about loss of trust and Sentinel Scheme rules. The employer argued that reinstatement would breach industry safety rules, but the tribunal was not convinced. Network Rail refused to comply, leading to a further hearing on compensation.
What this means for similar claims
This case shows that tribunals can order reinstatement even in safety-critical roles if the employer's concerns are not justified. Employees who are unfairly dismissed due to medical conditions should consider seeking reinstatement, as it can be a powerful remedy. Employers must ensure they consider all evidence, including alternative testing methods, before dismissing for failure to comply with testing procedures.
Similar cases
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.
Warehouse operative unfairly dismissed after mitigation ignored in conduct case
An employment tribunal found ASDA unfairly dismissed a warehouse operative with 18 years' service after failing to investigate his mitigation evidence, awarding £14,817 in compensation.
Bus driver dismissed after driving onto pavement to overtake: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after driving onto a pavement to overtake another bus. The tribunal rejected claims of race and religious discrimination.
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.