A Nestle factory worker who was sacked after triggering a full production shutdown by allegedly vaping in a disabled toilet has won a £22,000 payout. 

Luke Billings set off the fire alarm at the food giant's facility in Tutbury, Staffordshire, in October 2023, triggering a full evacuation and halting work on the factory floor.

The technical operator, who had worked at the factory for more than a decade, initially told bosses he did not vape when they confronted him with CCTV footage of him slipping into the bathroom to smoke. 

But he later conceded under questioning at an internal disciplinary hearing that he did in fact use e-cigarettes, but only at home and on weekends.

Mr Billings, who never admitted vaping in the toilet, was dismissed for gross misconduct. 

But he has now walked away with £22,216.72 after a Nottingham employment tribunal ruled Nestle had no right to sack him for lying.

The panel heard the employee, who had worked at the coffee factory since 2012, set off the fire alarm on October 11, 2023. 

It noted: 'All staff had to be evacuated. Production ceased until it was deemed safe to return. As a consequence there was disruption and lost production.' 

An internal investigation reviewing CCTV footage found it was caused by Mr Billings vaping in the disabled toilet. Any kind of smoking is forbidden on the site. 

But when confronted by his employer, the panel said: 'The Claimant maintained his position that he was not vaping in the toilets on the day in question.

'He said he did not vape so it could not be him.' 

It was only as questioning progressed that he 'accepted that he did occasionally vape but only at weekends and only at home', the panel added. 

But despite this, Nestle's disciplinary officer decided to dismiss the employee, for a series of reasons. 

The tribunal heard: 'Firstly, he considered a breach of health and safety. Secondly, he lost trust and confidence in the Claimant because he believed he was lying. 

'Thirdly, there was a loss of production to the business. 

'He concluded that the Claimant having been employed for a long time in the business ought to have known better. 

'The Claimant appealed but the appeal was dismissed.'

Mr Billings hauled the company before an employment tribunal, bringing claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.

He was on a phased return to full-time work at the time after a year's sick leave for depression, from June 2022 to August 2023. 

The employee argued he would not have been sacked if this was not the case.

He pointed to a colleague who had stored a 'washbag of clothing' in 'a housing area that is used to enclose a fire hose' instead of a locker, the tribunal heard. 

This other worker admitted this was a health and safety risk, apologised and was given a final written warning at another hearing just before Mr Billings's.

Mr Billings said this staff member was in 'a comparable situation' but was not sacked - arguing this showed he was 'treated inconsistently' for his disability of depression.  

But Nestle's disciplinary officer said had he similarly 'accepted his mistake and apologised', he would have avoided dismissal. 

The panel agreed: 'The less favourable treatment was not because of the Claimant's disability but because he did not admit his culpability and/or apologise.' 

It added: 'The reason for dismissal had nothing to do with the Claimant's disability.'  

His disability discrimination claim was therefore thrown out - but his allegation of unfair dismissal was upheld. 

This was because 'the decision to dismiss fell outside the range of reasonable responses open to a reasonable employer', the tribunal heard. 

The panel noted: '[The disciplinary officer] made it clear in his evidence that had the Claimant accepted he had been vaping in the toilet, and apologised, he would not have been dismissed. 

'In other words, health and safety and loss of production were not the principal reasons. 

'They played a lesser part in the decision to dismiss because they were not determinative. What was determinative was the failure to accept responsibility. 

'Failing to apologise or to accept responsibility is not misconduct.' 

It also concluded sacking Mr Billings was 'disproportionate', after 'a single isolated act' in an otherwise 'unblemished career'. 

Nestle has now been ordered to pay him compensation. 

On top of a basic award, he was reimbursed for the earnings he lost that he was set to accrue by date he was set to return full-time, in November 2023. 

The sum also took into account his loss of pension benefits and statutory rights.  

The tribunal heard the figure was half what it otherwise would have been, as 'the Claimant has contributed to his dismissal' and was 'equally to blame' for it.