A former Wickes duty manager has lost her legal bid for unfair dismissal after being fired for cocaine use, with an employment tribunal ruling the DIY retailer acted reasonably in its decision.
Employment Tribunal Hears Details of Cocaine Incident
The London tribunal heard that Jasmin Unsted, employed as a duty manager at Wickes from March 2021, was dismissed in May 2024 following an investigation into suspected drug use at work. The case centred on events during a shift in February 2024 when her behaviour raised concerns among colleagues.
Unusual Behaviour and Suspicious Discovery
Operations manager Rebecca Carter told the tribunal she noticed Ms Unsted behaving unusually during her shift on 10 February 2024. Normally described as loud, bubbly and highly focused, Ms Unsted was instead quiet, unfocused and less interactive with her team.
"She was pacing around the store and made frequent trips to the toilet, more than once an hour," Ms Carter testified. "These trips were unusual because, although she worked on the ground floor, she repeatedly went upstairs to use the toilet, which drew my attention."
When asked if she was alright, Ms Unsted reportedly shrugged off the concern and said she would "be okay after some caffeine." Later that afternoon, Ms Carter entered the female toilets and saw Ms Unsted leaving a cubicle with a windowsill.
White Powder Discovery and Drug Test Refusal
Ms Carter reported finding "what appeared to be remnants from a line of cocaine" on the windowsill of the toilet cubicle Ms Unsted had used. This discovery was reported to Wickes's employee relations team, prompting an investigation.
A drug testing technician was called to the store, but Ms Unsted refused to take the test after being informed that her admitted drug use the previous night would likely result in a positive result. Under Wickes's zero-tolerance policy on alcohol and drugs, refusal to take a test is treated as a positive result.
Manager's Defence and Tribunal Findings
During the investigation, Ms Unsted admitted she had consumed a 70cl bottle of Malibu and taken one line of cocaine until 3am the night before her shift. She stated: "Drinking until 3am 70cl bottle. Felt tired and ropey, not hungover. But I didn't feel like I was 18 anymore."
She denied taking drugs while on shift and claimed the description of her unusual behaviour actually described her normal ADHD symptoms. However, the tribunal found Wickes had no prior knowledge of any ADHD diagnosis before this point.
Gross Misconduct Finding
In her disciplinary hearing, Ms Unsted argued she "should not have been asked to undertake a test and that without her admission nobody would have been aware of her cocaine use." She was subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct based on two factors:
- Her admission to taking cocaine the evening before her shift
- Her refusal to participate in a drug and alcohol test, treated as a positive result under company policy
Ms Unsted appealed the decision, claiming she had been "set up" by Ms Carter following a deterioration in their working relationship, but her appeal was dismissed.
Tribunal's Final Ruling
Employment Judge Lise Burge delivered the tribunal's ruling, stating: "Even if the Tribunal had decided that the dismissal was unfair, which we did not, the Tribunal's view is that [Ms Unsted]'s conduct was culpable and blameworthy."
The judge continued: "She took cocaine the night before her shift. Cocaine is illegal and the safety implications of taking drugs and mixing drugs and alcohol is clear in [Wickes]'s Alcohol & Drugs policy."
Regarding the drug test refusal, Judge Burge noted: "Even if the white powder in the toilet was not cocaine belonging to her, and we make no findings on whether it was or was not, it was reasonable for [Wickes] to request a drug test. [Ms Unsted] refused to take it as she believed she would have cocaine in her system. She caused the dismissal."
The tribunal also dismissed Ms Unsted's claims for discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments, finding no evidence that Wickes was aware of any disability before the disciplinary process began.
This case highlights the serious consequences of drug use in the workplace and the importance of employers maintaining clear policies on substance abuse, particularly in retail environments where safety considerations are paramount.
