The Claimant suffered from depression which was known to the Respondent. He was dismissed for falling asleep while at work and subsequently refusing (on the Respondent's account) to take alcohol and drugs tests on two separate occasions. At the ET, emphasis was placed on the Respondent's health and safety policy which provided that a failure to comply with a "with cause" request to submit to a drugs test could lead to dismissal. Both arguments were rejected by the Tribunal, which in its reasons relied principally on the evidence of the respondent's HR Manager that the Claimant had posed no health and safety risk at the time of his dismissal. The Tribunal found that the Respondent had been wrong (i) to reject the Claimant's explanation for falling asleep at work (ii) to fail to take account of the reasons for his refusal to take the first test, and (iii) to regard him as failing to submit to the second test when there was unchallenged medical evidence that he had been unfit to attend. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. They rejected the Respondent's argument that the Tribunal, having directed itself to the correct legal test, which requires an objective balance between the opposing interests, had failed to apply that test as it had not weighed the Respondent's need to enforce their health policy strictly in the balance.

Read the full text of the judgment here