Dismissed after client refused site access: a fair 'some other substantial reason' case
A tribunal upheld the dismissal of a team leader after the client refused to allow him on site, finding the employer did all it reasonably could to find alternative work.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The Claimant was employed by the Second Respondent (Sasse Ltd) after a TUPE transfer from the First Respondent (First West of England Ltd).
- The First Respondent requested the Claimant's removal from its sites due to complaints about his conduct.
- The Second Respondent investigated the complaints but did not find the Claimant guilty of misconduct.
- The Second Respondent dismissed the Claimant because the First Respondent refused to allow him on site and no alternative work was available.
- The Second Respondent asked the First Respondent to reconsider its decision multiple times but was refused.
- The Employment Tribunal found the dismissal fair under the 'some other substantial reason' category.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment, initially with First Respondent.
-
TUPE transfer to Second Respondent
Claimant's employment transferred to Sasse Ltd under TUPE.
-
Internal complaint by Mr King
Engineering Chargehand Mr King filed a complaint about the Claimant.
-
Formal complaint by Mr Morris
Engineering Manager Mr Morris emailed the Second Respondent complaining the Claimant was uncooperative.
-
Request for removal
Mr Morris emailed Mr Northey asking for the Claimant to be transferred out of the depot.
-
First Respondent demands removal
Mr Northey emailed the Second Respondent demanding the Claimant be removed from all sites.
-
Suspension
Claimant suspended on full pay pending investigation.
-
Investigation meeting
Mr Czarny met with Claimant; Claimant provided explanations.
-
Review meeting
Mr Borg held a review meeting; Claimant repeated his explanations.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed for some other substantial reason (client refusal).
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mr Pecce; upheld dismissal.
-
Final client refusal
Mr Pecce asked First Respondent again; they refused to allow Claimant back.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal for 'some other substantial reason' (the client's refusal to allow the employee on site) was fair, considering whether the employer did everything reasonable to avoid the injustice.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal against the Second Respondent (Sasse Ltd).
The key reasons were:
- The reason for dismissal was 'some other substantial reason' – the client's refusal to allow the employee on site.
- The employer investigated the complaints but did not find misconduct; however, the client's refusal was a genuine business reason.
- The employer considered alternative employment but none was available.
- The employer asked the client to reconsider multiple times, but the client refused.
- The procedure was fair given the circumstances.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If a client demands an employee's removal, document all steps taken to resolve the situation before resorting to dismissal.
- Consider alternative employment thoroughly, even if it seems unlikely, to show you acted reasonably.
- A 'some other substantial reason' dismissal can be fair if the employer has no control over the client's decision and has exhausted other options.
When a client says no
This case illustrates the difficult position an employer can be in when a client refuses to allow an employee on site. The team leader, with 14 years' service, was dismissed after the bus operator client demanded his removal following complaints about his conduct. The employer investigated but did not find him guilty of misconduct. However, the client stood firm, and no alternative work was available.
What the employer did right
The tribunal noted that the employer repeatedly asked the client to reconsider, explored alternative roles, and kept the employee on full pay during the investigation. When those efforts failed, dismissal was the only option. The tribunal found this fell within the range of reasonable responses, even though the employee was not at fault.
What this means for similar claims
For employees, this case is a reminder that a dismissal can be fair even if you are not to blame, provided the employer acts reasonably. For employers, it highlights the importance of documenting efforts to resolve client demands and considering all alternatives before dismissing.
Similar cases
Security officer unfairly dismissed after employer mistakenly believed revoked licence meant no legal work
A security officer with four years' service was unfairly dismissed after G4S mistakenly believed he could not legally work following his SIA licence revocation. The tribunal awarded £16,632.84.
Dismissed after visa sponsorship became impossible: Home Office rule change was 'some other substantial reason'
A tribunal has ruled that Fintru Limited fairly dismissed an associate whose skilled worker visa could not be renewed after the Home Office raised salary thresholds. The employer explored alternatives and followed a reasonable process.
Dismissed by father after family breakdown: WhatsApp message found to be unfair dismissal
A father who told his daughter 'I don't have a job for you, in fact I hope I never see u again' in a WhatsApp message was found to have unfairly dismissed her. The tribunal awarded £13,977.58.
Missed redundancy interview: long-serving project manager loses unfair dismissal claim
A project manager with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after failing to attend a competitive interview. The tribunal rejected claims that his role as an employee representative or his grievances were the real reason.