Dismissed for cocaine metabolite from coca tea: blameworthy conduct wipes out compensation
An On Train Technician was unfairly dismissed after testing positive for cocaine metabolite from coca tea, but the tribunal reduced his compensation to nil because he was wholly to blame for failing to research the product.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #drug-test
- #coca-tea
- #health-and-safety-critical
- #contributory-conduct
- #procedural-unfairness
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an On Train Technician in a health and safety critical role.
- He tested positive for cocaine metabolite after drinking coca tea purchased from a market stall.
- The respondent conceded the dismissal was procedurally unfair.
- The tribunal found the claimant wholly to blame for his dismissal due to his failure to research the tea.
- The basic and compensatory awards were reduced to nil for contributory conduct.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as an On Train Technician.
-
Purchased coca tea
Claimant bought Mate Tea (coca tea) from a market stall to relieve indigestion.
-
Drug test
Claimant underwent a periodic drug and alcohol screening test.
-
Positive result confirmed
Test result showed positive for benzoylecgonine; claimant suspended.
-
Claimant's statement
Claimant provided a personal statement attributing the positive test to the coca tea.
-
Disciplinary hearing scheduled
Claimant refused to attend, citing ill health.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance against the investigating and disciplinary officers.
-
Grievance upheld
Grievance upheld; new disciplinary manager appointed.
-
Claimant attempted suicide
Claimant attempted suicide.
-
Re-test positive
Independent re-test confirmed positive result at over 4 times the cut-off.
-
Fit for disciplinary
Occupational health declared claimant fit to attend disciplinary hearing.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Disciplinary hearing held.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal rejected
Appeal hearing held and dismissal upheld.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented ET1 to the tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's basic and compensatory awards for unfair dismissal should be reduced due to his contributory conduct, and whether the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages by changing his pay from suspension to sick pay.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim for unfair dismissal but awarded no compensation. The respondent conceded procedural unfairness, but the tribunal found the claimant's own conduct – drinking coca tea without checking its ingredients – was wholly to blame for his dismissal.
- Basic award: reduced by 100% for contributory conduct
- Compensatory award: nil due to contributory conduct
- Unauthorised deductions claim: dismissed
Lessons & takeaways
- If you work in a health and safety critical role, you must take extra care to avoid any substance that could trigger a positive drug test, even if it seems harmless.
- Failing to research a product before consuming it can be considered blameworthy conduct, potentially wiping out any compensation for unfair dismissal.
- Even if your employer's process is unfair, your own actions may still reduce or eliminate your compensation if they contributed to the dismissal.
This case shows how an employee's own actions can completely undermine a successful unfair dismissal claim. The claimant, an On Train Technician with eight years' service, was dismissed after testing positive for cocaine metabolite. He had drunk coca tea bought from a market stall to relieve indigestion, unaware that it contained coca leaf, which is banned in the UK.
What the employer did wrong
Network Rail conceded that the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The tribunal noted that the process had been delayed by the claimant's ill health and a successful grievance, but the employer's handling still fell short of the required standard. This concession meant the claimant had technically won his unfair dismissal claim.
Why he got nothing
However, the tribunal focused on the claimant's own conduct. It found that as a health and safety critical worker, he should have researched the tea before drinking it. His failure to do so was blameworthy and the sole cause of his dismissal. Under sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 100%. The claimant received no compensation at all.
The wider lesson
This case is a stark reminder that procedural unfairness does not guarantee a payout. Tribunals will look at whether the employee's own actions contributed to the dismissal. For workers in safety-critical roles, the duty to avoid prohibited substances is particularly high – even seemingly innocent products can have serious consequences.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Manager dismissed for password breach wins unfair dismissal claim
A manager with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed investigation into password sharing and order deletion. The tribunal awarded £5,552 but reduced compensation because he contributed to his own dismissal.
Lead nurse dismissed for breaching patient confidentiality: procedural failings led to unfair dismissal finding
A lead nurse specialist was unfairly dismissed by Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust after the trust failed to properly handle her grievance. The tribunal found she had committed gross misconduct but the dismissal was procedurally unfair.