Seafood factory worker sacked for drinking three beers nine hours before shift started wins £5,000 payout

14

A SEAFOOD factory worker sacked for drinking three beers nine hours before her shift has gained a £5,000 payout.

Malgorzata Krolik was fired after bosses claimed they could scent alcohol on her when she turned up for her afternoon shift.

A factory worker who was fired for drinking alcohol before work has gained a £5,000 payoutCredit: google maps
An employment tribunal ruled Malgorzata Krolik was unfairly dismissed (stock image)
An employment tribunal dominated Malgorzata Krolik was unfairly dismissed (inventory picture)Credit: Getty

Seafood massive Youngs mentioned its ‘zero tolerance’ safety on alcohol meant employees couldn’t drink on the equal day they labored and fired her for gross misconduct.

But an employment tribunal dominated Ms Krolik was unfairly dismissed as she had had three beers contained in the early hours to assist her sleep – which was the equal of any particular person working a 9am shift having alcohol at 11pm before going to mattress.

The Polish mom had labored on the corporate’s factory in Livingston, close to Edinburgh, Scotland, for 11 years before the incident in August 2020.

On that day she arrived at work for a 2pm to 10pm shift to an worker briefing carried out by operations supervisor Alex Forrest.

During the assembly, Ms Krolik had an indignant outburst and stormed out after being steered she would want to take her journey whereas work was carried out on the manufacturing line.

After the briefing she was admonished by bosses and apologised to Mr Forrest.

The tribunal heard she started crying, so group supervisor Rolands Piekmans comforted her by giving her a hug and that is when he smelt alcohol on her.

She was then requested by bosses if she had been drinking and she or he admitted she had drunk three beers the night time time time before and had gone to sleep spherical 5am.

She was taken to the workplace to talk with successfully being and security supervisor Jamie Glidden who mentioned he had goal to consider she was drunk.

Ms Krolik replied: “I’ve had one, no three beers before work this morning as I’ve had hassle sleeping and that’s in all probability why you scent the alcohol.

“I feel ok and lots of other people drink too.”

During the dialog she requested whether or not or not or not she should do the alcohol breathalyser look at which was laid on the desk – however Mr Glidden steered her there was no want to take movement as she had admitted herself that she had had three beers.

The tribunal heard Mr Glidden mentioned the corporate had a zero tolerance approach to alcohol on the positioning and she or he was then suspended.

She steered an investigatory assembly she had topic sleeping due to factors as soon as extra in Poland, along with: “I don’t think I was under the influence, I might of just smelt of alcohol.”

She furthermore admitted to having an alcohol draw again and mentioned she wanted help to take care of this.

However product improvement supervisor Alison Hargreaves sacked Ms Krolik as she believed she solely mentioned she had an issue with alcohol “as an excuse for her behaviour and being under the influence”.

‘NOT REASONABLE’

Employment Judge Jude Shepherd mentioned: “It was merely assumed she had behaved out of character due to she was drunk.

“Without further investigation, Ms Hargreaves rejected the claimant’s assertion that she had an alcohol draw again as being merely an excuse for her behaviour.

“The proof before [Youngs] was that [Ms Krolik] had consumed three beers between eight and 10 hours before beginning work at 2pm and had slept for fairly just a few hours after consuming the alcohol.

“[Youngs] appeared to position important emphasis on its ‘zero tolerance’ approach to alcohol and upon the fact that [Ms Krolik] had consumed the alcohol on ‘the same day’ as attending work.

“The tribunal notes that that’s the identical as an worker consuming three beers by 11pm at night time time time, sleeping for fairly just a few hours, after which attending work at 9am the next day.

“It was not reasonable for the respondent to conclude that the claimant posed a health and safety risk to herself or other employees on this basis without further investigation.”

Ms Krolik gained a declare of unfair dismissal and was awarded £5,454.29 in compensation.

Comments are closed.