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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #security-licence-revocation
- #some-other-substantial-reason
- #unfair-dismissal
- #disability-discrimination-dismissed
- #acas-code-not-applicable
- #remedy-hearing
Key facts
- The claimant was a security officer whose SIA licence was revoked due to an undisclosed criminal conviction.
- The respondent mistakenly believed the claimant could not legally work after revocation, despite SIA guidance stating otherwise.
- The claimant was placed on unpaid suspension and later dismissed after a consultation period.
- The tribunal found the respondent's belief was not held on reasonable grounds and the dismissal was unfair.
- The claimant's disability discrimination claim failed because the dismissal was not related to his sickness absence.
- The ACAS Code did not apply as the dismissal was not for culpable conduct.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a Security Officer for G4S.
-
Assault on claimant
Claimant was victim of an assault, negatively impacting his mental health.
-
Criminal conviction
Claimant convicted of a racially aggravated public order offence; he did not disclose it to employer or SIA.
-
PTSD diagnosis
Claimant diagnosed with PTSD but did not inform employer.
-
SIA revocation notice
SIA informed claimant it was minded to revoke his licence due to undisclosed conviction; claimant did not respond.
-
Licence revoked
SIA revoked claimant's licence; respondent notified same day.
-
Unpaid suspension
Claimant placed on unpaid suspension pending consultation.
-
Consultation meeting
Claimant met with manager; admitted failing to disclose conviction; said he would appeal.
-
Appeal to Magistrates' Court
Claimant appealed SIA revocation; licence deemed valid pending appeal.
-
Notice of dismissal
Respondent gave claimant 3 weeks' notice of termination due to revoked licence.
-
Effective date of termination
Claimant's employment ended.
-
Licence reinstated
SIA reversed revocation; claimant withdrew court appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether G4S acted reasonably in dismissing the security officer for 'some other substantial reason' based on its mistaken belief that he could not legally work after his SIA licence was revoked, and whether the dismissal was related to his disability.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim, finding that G4S's belief that the claimant could not legally work was not reasonable given SIA guidance to the contrary. The disability discrimination claim was dismissed as the dismissal was not related to his sickness absence.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £3,228.00
- Compensatory award: £13,404.84
- Total: £16,632.84
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must verify their understanding of regulatory requirements before relying on them as a reason for dismissal.
- A mistaken belief about an employee's legal ability to work can render a dismissal unfair if the belief is not based on reasonable grounds.
- Employees should disclose any criminal convictions promptly to avoid complications with professional licences.
- Disability discrimination claims require a direct link between the disability and the treatment; a dismissal for other reasons may not succeed.
When a mistaken belief leads to unfair dismissal
This case shows how an employer's failure to check the facts can turn a seemingly straightforward dismissal into an unfair one. The security officer had his SIA licence revoked after failing to disclose a criminal conviction. G4S immediately placed him on unpaid suspension and later dismissed him, believing he could not legally work without a valid licence. However, SIA guidance made clear that employees could continue working while appealing a revocation. The tribunal found that G4S's belief was not held on reasonable grounds, making the dismissal unfair.
What G4S could have done differently
G4S could have consulted the SIA guidance or sought legal advice before concluding the claimant could not work. Instead, it acted on an assumption that proved incorrect. The claimant's appeal to the Magistrates' Court meant his licence was deemed valid pending the outcome, yet G4S proceeded with dismissal. A simple check would have revealed that the claimant could have remained in work, avoiding the unfair dismissal and the subsequent compensation award of £16,632.84.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights the importance of employers basing dismissal decisions on accurate information, especially when regulatory licences are involved. For employees, it underscores the need to disclose convictions promptly to avoid licence issues. The dismissal of the disability discrimination claim also shows that a successful unfair dismissal claim does not automatically mean other claims will succeed. The ACAS Code did not apply here because the dismissal was not for misconduct, but for a 'some other substantial reason' – a distinction that can affect compensation uplifts.
Similar cases
Unfair dismissal for conduct: award reduced by 30% for contributory fault
A former Openreach employee won his unfair dismissal claim but saw his compensation cut by 30% because his own conduct contributed to his sacking. The tribunal awarded £42,845.56.
Dismissed for being pregnant: employer's false redundancy reason leads to £25,000 award
A Birmingham tribunal found that ALM Electrical Solutions Ltd dismissed a pregnant employee shortly after she disclosed her pregnancy, fabricating a redundancy reason. The claimant was awarded over £25,000 for injury to feelings and losses.
Dismissed during long-term sickness: disability discrimination and unfair dismissal at Jaguar Land Rover
A production operative with six years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against due to disability-related sickness absence. The tribunal awarded £147,572.75 in compensation.
Dismissed while pregnant: employer's failure to provide written reasons adds to compensation
A tribunal found that a former employee was unfairly dismissed because of her pregnancy, and awarded over £23,800 including £12,000 for injury to feelings.