Employment Appeal Tribunal Upholds Dismissal Over Serious Health and Safety Breach
An employee's appeal against dismissal for a serious health and safety breach at Teva UK Ltd has been dismissed by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
• public
Employee's Appeal Dismissed Over Health and Safety Breach
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a dismissal decision concerning a former Teva UK Ltd employee, Craig Lamb, who alleged unfair dismissal. The EAT found that the initial Employment Tribunal's decision that the dismissal was fair was not perverse, despite several procedural concerns raised by Mr. Lamb.
Key Issues in the Case
The appeal centred on several points, including the involvement of the same individual in both investigating and providing witness statements, as well as the timing of evidence presented to the employee. The tribunal considered the fundamental statutory test for unfair dismissal, natural justice, and ACAS guidance throughout its judgment.
Mr. Lamb's dismissal stemmed from a serious health and safety incident involving a faulty forklift charger. The incident, which occurred in the early hours of July 17, 2022, resulted in a worker suffering an electric shock, categorised as a potential fatality.
The investigation into the incident raised questions about Mr. Lamb's actions, particularly his signing of a work permit on July 12, 2022, which stated the area was safe, clean, and tidy, despite the electrical fault not having been remedied.
Tribunal's Findings on Procedural Fairness
The EAT reviewed the Employment Tribunal's findings, which concluded that while some aspects of the process could have been improved, the overall disciplinary procedure was fair. Specifically, the tribunal considered:
- The dual involvement of Mr. Lillington, who conducted the investigation and provided a witness statement.
- The involvement of Ms. Clark as both a witness and note-taker.
- The provision of evidence, including CCTV footage analysis, less than 24 hours before the disciplinary hearing.
- The possibility that a manager had made comments suggesting Mr. Lamb would not return to the business.
Despite these concerns, the tribunal determined that these factors, when viewed in the round, did not render the dismissal unfair. The EAT agreed that the Employment Tribunal had acted reasonably in its assessment, noting that Mr. Lamb had not significantly challenged the evidence of Mr. Lillington during the disciplinary process and that the alleged comments, while unwise, were not made by the decision-maker and did not indicate ill will.
Statutory and Regulatory Framework
The judgment extensively referenced Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which outlines the general principles for determining fair or unfair dismissal. It also considered the guidance provided by ACAS on disciplinary and grievance procedures, emphasizing the importance of fair investigations, clear communication of charges, and the opportunity for employees to respond.
The tribunal stressed that a dismissal process does not need to be perfect, but it must be reasonable and conducted within a band of reasonable responses. The EAT concluded that the Employment Tribunal's decision was robust and that the grounds for appeal were not met.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr Craig Lamb v Teva Uk Ltd [2026] EAT 8
