Customer service assistant dismissed for attempted strike on teenager: tribunal upholds gross misconduct decision
A customer service assistant who tried to strike a teenage customer with an open hand was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal ruled. His race discrimination claims against third-party security guards were also dismissed.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #attempted-strike
- #cctv-evidence
- #customer-facing-role
- #gross-misconduct
- #race-discrimination-dismissed
Key facts
- The claimant attempted to strike a teenage customer with an open hand but did not make contact.
- The incident was captured on CCTV from three cameras.
- The claimant was dismissed without notice on 22 August 2022 for gross misconduct.
- The claimant's race discrimination claims against security guards and their supervisor were dismissed.
- The security guards were employed by a third party, not the respondent.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a customer service assistant at Tilbury Town station.
-
Incident with teenager
Claimant attempted to strike a teenage customer with an open hand; CCTV captured the incident.
-
Altercation with supervisor
Claimant had a heated discussion with Mr Sullivan, who he alleged threatened him.
-
Complaints received
Respondent received complaints from security guards about the claimant's behaviour.
-
Investigation meeting
Mr Qayyum interviewed the claimant; claimant did not recall the incident.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
Claimant contacted ACAS.
-
Dismissal
Ms Hayter dismissed the claimant without notice for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the dismissal decision.
-
ET1 claim presented
Claimant presented claims of unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Hendry upheld the dismissal decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct after attempting to strike a teenage customer, and whether he was subjected to direct race discrimination by security guards and their supervisor.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, finding that Trenitalia C2C Limited had a genuine belief in the misconduct based on CCTV footage from three cameras. The investigation and dismissal process were reasonable, and the appeal was properly considered.
The race discrimination claims against the security guards and their supervisor were also dismissed because the guards were employed by a third party, not the respondent, and the tribunal found no evidence of less favourable treatment on racial grounds.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Clear CCTV evidence can significantly strengthen an employer's case for gross misconduct, especially in customer-facing roles.
- Employers are not liable for discrimination by third-party contractors unless they have control over their actions.
- A fair process, including investigation and appeal, is key to defending an unfair dismissal claim even when misconduct is clear.
- Employees in customer service roles should be aware that any physical confrontation, even if no contact is made, can lead to summary dismissal.
What this case shows in practice
A customer service assistant with nearly four years' service was dismissed after attempting to strike a teenage customer with an open hand. The incident was captured on CCTV from three angles, and the employer concluded that the behaviour amounted to gross misconduct. The tribunal agreed, finding that the dismissal was fair and that the employer had acted reasonably in all the circumstances.
The case highlights how seriously tribunals take physical confrontations in customer-facing roles, even when no contact is made. The employer's decision to dismiss without notice was upheld because the misconduct was clear and the employee's role required safe interaction with the public.
What the employer did right
Trenitalia C2C Limited conducted a thorough investigation, including reviewing CCTV footage and interviewing the employee. The dismissal decision was made by a manager who had not been involved in the earlier altercations, and the employee was given a right of appeal, which was properly considered. The tribunal noted that the process was fair and that the outcome was within the range of reasonable responses for an employer in this situation.
Why the result matters
This case reinforces that employers can rely on strong evidence like CCTV to justify summary dismissal for gross misconduct. It also clarifies that race discrimination claims against third-party contractors will fail if the employer has no control over those individuals. For employees, the message is clear: any attempt at physical violence, even if unsuccessful, can lead to dismissal without notice, and tribunals will not second-guess a reasonable employer's decision.
Similar cases
Bus driver dismissed after driving onto pavement to overtake: dismissal fair
A bus driver with 13 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after driving onto a pavement to overtake another bus. The tribunal rejected claims of race and religious discrimination.
Delivery manager dismissed for 'intention to steal' wins race discrimination claim
A black Caribbean delivery manager was unfairly dismissed and racially stereotyped after a returned iPhone went missing. The tribunal found Royal Mail's investigation was flawed and the claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical white comparator.
22-year service host dismissed for theft: Asda's decision upheld as fair
An employment tribunal has upheld Asda's dismissal of a service host with 22 years' service after CCTV showed her taking coins and bags for life without paying. The tribunal found the decision was within the range of reasonable responses.
23-year production manager dismissed over scrap wood sales: conduct dismissal upheld
A production manager with 23 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after an investigation into missing scrap wood sale proceeds, the tribunal ruled, despite errors in the employer's spreadsheet evidence.