Dismissed after leaving CCTV post: conduct dismissal upheld for rehabilitation support worker
A rehabilitation support worker with a live final written warning was fairly dismissed after leaving her CCTV post to answer buzzers, allowing a vulnerable service user to abscond. The tribunal dismissed her claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #rehabilitation-support-worker
- #cctv-monitoring
- #service-user-absconding
- #final-written-warning
- #race-discrimination
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a rehabilitation support worker from 4 October 2015 until 18 December 2020.
- She was subject to a live final written warning for sleeping on duty.
- On 2 November 2020, while monitoring CCTV of a gate under repair, she left her post to respond to buzzers, and a vulnerable service user left the site.
- The respondent investigated and dismissed the claimant for misconduct, taking into account her admission and the live warning.
- The claimant's appeal was rejected after a fair process.
- The tribunal found no evidence of race discrimination and dismissed both claims.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for The Disabilities Trust as a rehabilitation support worker.
-
Gate problem identified
The care home gate was removed for repairs, requiring additional CCTV monitoring.
-
First service user absconding incident
A service user left the site while a bank worker was watching CCTV, leading to a risk assessment and clearer instructions.
-
Incident leading to dismissal
Claimant left CCTV post to answer buzzers; service user J left the site. Claimant admitted leaving her post.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed with notice due to misconduct, taking into account her live final written warning.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed, arguing organisational failures and that she acted instinctively.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal panel considered grounds and rejected the appeal.
-
Claim form lodged
Claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for misconduct and whether her dismissal amounted to direct race discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims.
- The dismissal was fair: the respondent had a genuine belief in misconduct based on a reasonable investigation, and dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses given the live final written warning and the seriousness of the incident.
- The race discrimination claim failed because the claimant did not provide evidence that she was treated less favourably than a comparator of a different race.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- A live final written warning can make dismissal for a further misconduct more likely to be fair, even if the new incident alone might not warrant dismissal.
- Employers should ensure that instructions about safety-critical tasks are clear and documented, especially when circumstances change.
- Employees should raise any concerns about safety or instructions at the time, rather than relying on hindsight after an incident.
- Race discrimination claims require evidence of less favourable treatment compared to a real or hypothetical comparator of a different race.
What this case shows in practice
This case demonstrates how a previous disciplinary sanction can tip the balance in a later misconduct dismissal. The claimant, a rehabilitation support worker with six years' service, was already subject to a final written warning for sleeping on duty when she left her CCTV monitoring post to answer buzzers. During her absence, a vulnerable service user left the secure site. The employer dismissed her for misconduct, citing the live warning and the serious risk to service users.
The tribunal accepted that the employer had carried out a reasonable investigation and considered the claimant's explanation. However, because of the live warning and the clear instruction that staff should not leave the CCTV post unattended, the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses. The appeal process was also fair.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant argued that the employer had failed to provide adequate cover or risk assessment for the gate repair. However, she did not raise these concerns at the time. If she had flagged the difficulty of juggling CCTV monitoring with other duties, the employer might have adjusted the arrangements. Similarly, the employer could have reinforced the CCTV instructions more clearly after the earlier absconding incident on 17 October 2020.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that a final written warning is not just a paper exercise — it can be the decisive factor in a later dismissal. For employees, it underscores the importance of raising concerns promptly and following instructions to the letter, especially in safety-critical roles. For employers, it shows that a fair process and a clear disciplinary history can successfully defend a conduct dismissal, even where the employee has long service.
Similar cases
Black psychiatric nurse passed over for dual diagnosis lead role: race and sex discrimination upheld
A Black African community psychiatric nurse with 15 years' service was found to have been discriminated against when two white female colleagues were appointed to a specialist lead role he was qualified for. The tribunal upheld his claims of direct race and sex discrimination and harassment.
Dismissed after final written warning: conduct decision upheld by tribunal
A client care associate with six years' service was dismissed for aggressive behaviour and unauthorised absences while on a final written warning. The tribunal upheld the dismissal, finding the employer acted reasonably.
Assistant store manager loses constructive dismissal and race discrimination claim against Hugo Boss
An assistant store manager who resigned claiming constructive dismissal and race discrimination has lost his case. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence and no evidence of discrimination.
Probationary concierge dismissed for performance issues, not whistleblowing
An employment tribunal has ruled that a concierge officer was fairly dismissed during her probation period due to genuine performance concerns, not because she raised safety issues with councillors.