Nestlé worker awarded £22,000 after dismissal for toilet vaping

A former technical operator at Nestlé has been awarded over £22,000 in compensation after an employment tribunal ruled that his dismissal for allegedly vaping in workplace toilets was a disproportionate response. The ruling, announced in March 2026, concluded that while the company had reasonable grounds to suspect misconduct, the decision to terminate the employee’s contract failed to account for his long-term service and lacked a clear disciplinary policy regarding vaping.

Disproportionate response to workplace misconduct

Luke Billings, who had been employed at the Nestlé facility in Hatton since 2012, was dismissed in October 2023 for alleged gross misconduct. The incident, which involved the triggering of a fire alarm and a subsequent factory evacuation, led the company to pursue disciplinary action. While the tribunal acknowledged that the firm had reasonable grounds to investigate the matter, it found that the ultimate sanction of dismissal was excessive for what it described as a single isolated incident in an otherwise unblemished career.

The role of the ‘non-apology’ in dismissal

A critical finding in the tribunal’s report was the weight Nestlé placed on Billings’ refusal to admit guilt or offer an apology. The panel determined that the company used his maintenance of innocence as a primary justification for his termination. The judgment clarified that an employee’s failure to apologize for an act they deny committing does not constitute misconduct and should not be used as a basis for summary dismissal. This aspect of the case has drawn significant attention, as it highlights the risks to employers who prioritize forced admissions over proportional disciplinary measures.

Lack of clear policy regarding vaping

The tribunal further noted that Nestlé failed to establish a clear policy classifying vaping in toilets as gross misconduct. In the absence of documented rules that explicitly warned of termination for such behavior, the tribunal viewed the dismissal as unreasonable. Additionally, the panel noted that Billings’ 11-year history of clean service was not given sufficient credit during the disciplinary process. While Billings had raised a claim of disability discrimination—having recently returned from a year-long leave for depression—the tribunal rejected this specific claim, focusing its ruling instead on the procedural unfairness of the dismissal itself.

The ruling serves as a stark reminder to organizations that disciplinary matrices must be clearly defined and consistently applied. By penalizing an employee for maintaining their innocence rather than focusing on the established evidence of the infraction, the employer undermined the fairness of its own internal processes. This case underscores that long-standing service and the context of an employee’s return from medical leave are essential factors that must be weighed to ensure any disciplinary sanction remains within the range of reasonable responses.