Employee Unfairly Dismissed for Refusing to Admit Wrongdoing, Tribunal Finds

An employment tribunal has ruled that a Nestlé employee was unfairly dismissed after being accused of vaping in workplace toilets, despite accepting that the company had reasonable grounds to believe the misconduct had taken place.

Background to the Dismissal

The case involved a long-serving technical operator who was dismissed for gross misconduct after a factory fire alarm was triggered in October 2023.

Following an internal investigation, including CCTV evidence, Nestlé concluded that the employee had been vaping in a disabled toilet, causing disruption to production after staff were evacuated from the factory. The employee denied vaping at work, although he later admitted he did vape occasionally at home on weekends.

You can read more about how employers are expected to conduct fair investigations in the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures.

Tribunal Decision: Why the Dismissal Was Unfair

The tribunal accepted that the company genuinely believed the employee had committed misconduct and found that its investigation had been reasonable. It also accepted that vaping on site breached workplace rules and could amount to /employment-law-for-individuals/gross-misconduct-dismissalgross misconduct.

However, the tribunal concluded that the dismissal itself fell outside the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer.

A key issue was evidence from the manager who conducted the disciplinary hearing. He accepted that the employee would probably not have been dismissed if he had admitted what happened and apologised, as another employee had done in a separate health and safety incident. That employee received a final written warning rather than dismissal.

The tribunal said the decisive factor appeared to be the employee’s refusal to admit wrongdoing, rather than the vaping incident itself. It stated that failing to apologise or accept responsibility “is not misconduct”.

Key Issues Highlighted by the Case

The tribunal also criticised the employer for failing to make clear that vaping in the toilets would amount to gross misconduct. It said the employee’s long service should have been treated as mitigation rather than being used against him.

The employee had also brought /employment-law-for-individuals/disability-discriminationdisability discrimination claims linked to depression, having recently returned to work after a lengthy period of sickness absence. However, those claims were dismissed. The tribunal found the dismissal was related to the disciplinary issues rather than his disability.

Although the tribunal found the dismissal unfair, compensation was reduced by 50% because the employee’s own conduct had contributed to the situation.

The final award was just over £22,000.

The decision is a reminder that even where employers have reasonable grounds to believe misconduct has occurred, tribunals will still look closely at whether dismissal was a proportionate response and whether disciplinary policies clearly identify conduct that could lead to dismissal.

Case Details

Case: Mr Luke Billings v Nestlé UK Ltd
Tribunal: Employment Tribunal, Nottingham
Judge: Employment Judge Ahmed
Date: 19 February 2026

Expert Advice on Unfair Dismissal Claims

This case highlights how nuanced unfair dismissal claims can be. Even where an employer has a genuine and reasonable belief that misconduct has occurred, dismissal must still fall within the range of reasonable responses and follow a fair and proportionate process. In particular, employers should take care not to treat a failure to admit wrongdoing as misconduct in itself and must apply disciplinary policies consistently.

Our specialist employment law team has extensive experience advising employees on unfair dismissal claims, including complex cases involving alleged gross misconduct and procedural fairness. If you have been dismissed and believe the decision was unfair, or if you are facing disciplinary action at work, we can provide clear, practical advice on your options and help you pursue a claim where appropriate. Please contact us to discuss your situation in confidence.

About the Author

David is a solicitor-advocate with higher rights of audience since 2014. He qualified as a solicitor in 2013 and joined Machins in 2019 after over a decade at BT and two years at a City law firm. David advises on all aspects of employment law and has represented clients in more than 150 tribunal hearings.