Can Your Employer Fire You for Vaping? Why This Nestlé Worker Just Won a 27 Lakh Payout

In a significant ruling for labor rights, an employment tribunal has ordered global food giant Nestlé to pay £22,000 (approximately ₹27 lakh) to a former employee.

The worker, Luke Billings, was dismissed following allegations that he triggered a factory-wide fire alarm by vaping in a disabled washroom.

The Incident and Production Shutdown

The dispute traces back to October 11, 2023, at Nestlé’s coffee production facility in Tutbury, Staffordshire.

A fire alarm was activated, forcing a complete evacuation of the plant and halting production.

Following an internal investigation that included a review of CCTV footage, Nestlé concluded that the alarm was triggered by vaping in a prohibited area.

Mr. Billings, a technical operator who had served the company since 2012, was identified as the individual responsible.

Despite the company’s findings, Billings consistently denied the allegations, maintaining that he only vaped at home during weekends.

Nestlé subsequently terminated his employment for gross misconduct, citing a breach of health and safety protocols and a loss of “trust and confidence” due to his perceived dishonesty.

Nestlé Tribunal Finds Dismissal “Disproportionate”

The employment tribunal accepted that Nestlé had “reasonable grounds” to believe Billings was vaping. However, it ruled that the decision to fire him was excessive.

The presiding judge noted that the dismissal was primarily driven by the employee’s refusal to apologize or admit guilt, rather than the act itself.

The tribunal highlighted that Billings had an “unblemished career” spanning over a decade. It found that Nestlé failed to provide sufficient weight to his long service.

Furthermore, the court found that there was no clear company rule explicitly stating that vaping in a washroom would be classified as gross misconduct.

Read Also: Maharashtra Govt Targets “Fake Job Scams” and Illegal Layoffs in IT Sector

A Split Ruling on Discrimination

Billings also filed a claim for disability discrimination. He argued that his dismissal was influenced by a previous 14-month sick leave for depression.

He pointed to a colleague who had committed a safety breach but received only a warning.

The tribunal rejected this claim. It stated the harsher treatment was due to his lack of admission rather than his mental health.

The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim but reduced the total compensation by 50%.

This reduction occurred because the court deemed Billings equally to blame for the disruption.

Note: We are also on WhatsApp, LinkedIn, and YouTube to get the latest news updates. Subscribe to our Channels. WhatsApp– Click Here, YouTube – Click Here, and LinkedIn– Click Here.