A rail inspector has won £90,000 after he was sacked for failing to provide a urine sample for a drugs test - because he had a medical condition that meant he was too shy to wee. Railwayman Lewis Smith suffered from 'shy bladder syndrome' which left him too nervous to go to the loo when Network Rail called him in for the random check.
He pleaded that he wasn't trying to dodge it and even offered to carry out a blood test - but still he was fired for refusing to take part. Mr Smith, who previously had trouble going to the loo at social occasions, was later diagnosed with the disorder 'paruresis' by his GP.
The condition prevents people from peeing while under pressure or when other people around, and can be experienced by men flanked by other men at urinals. Mr Smith, who worked for Network Rail for nine years and managed a team of 12 in a safety critical role, successfully sued his former employer for unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal.
But now, after Network Rail ignored the tribunal's order to reinstate Mr Smith, claiming he found a 'loophole' to escape drug testing, the firm has been ordered to pay him almost £90,000. The tribunal heard Mr Smith, based at Network Rail's depot in Havant, Hants, first joined as an apprentice in 2010 and worked his way up the company, enjoying a 'successful' career.
He had previously been 'inconvenienced' while trying to wee but had been able to provide a urine sample for a drugs test years before, the tribunal in Southampton, Hants, heard. In July 2019, he and other colleagues were called to a drug and alcohol test 'on a hunch'.
A tribunal report said: "Mr Smith had informed the Testing Officer that he sometimes had difficulty with providing urine and had offered to undertake other tests, including a blood test, in place of providing a urine sample. "He had not sought to evade providing a urine sample. He was unable to do so because of an undiagnosed medical condition."
It added: "He had been inconvenienced on a few social occasions over a number of years, but had been able to provide a urine sample in a screening test that he had undertaken some years before. "He had no reason to believe that this would impact on the safe performance of his job.
"His GP's diagnosis confirmed that he was suffering from paruresis (shy bladder syndrome) and that this had prevented him from providing a sample to the Testing Officer." He was sacked in October 2019 despite there being 'no evidence of culpable and blameworthy conduct'. He has now won a claim of unfair dismissal at the tribunal.
The tribunal panel said Network Rail's decision to sack Mr Smith was 'flawed and ill-considered', and that its own procedures confirmed he had not attempted to evade drug testing. The hearing was told Mr Smith struggled to find work after being dismissed and ended up taking a job at Amazon.
Asking to get his old job back, he said he wanted to 'continue his career as a railwayman and will be effectively locked out of such a career unless he is reinstated, or re-engaged, by Network Rail policy'. However, Network Rail claimed there was a 'breakdown of trust' between the company and Mr Smith as it argued that he should not get his job back.
The company claimed it would 'lead other employees to conclude that Mr Smith had found a loophole in Network Rail's Alcohol and Drug Policy'. Ordering he be reinstated, the tribunal panel said: " Mr Smith had taken every possible step open to him at the earliest opportunity to prove he had not used drugs.
"There has been no evidence provided to the Tribunal to suggest that he had done so. "There is also no evidence before the Tribunal to support an allegation that his relationship with his manager, or any other colleagues, had broken down as a result of his actions and in particular issuing employment tribunal proceedings against Network Rail."
However, Network Rail maintained it did not wish to reinstate Mr Smith and accepted it must pay him compensation. As a result, the panel ordered the firm to pay Mr Smith £89,861, which includes a charge for its non-compliance. Of the £89,861, Mr Smith received £58,886 for compensation, £27,300 as an additional award, and £3,675 as a basic award.
