Dismissed security guard wins unfair dismissal and victimisation claims
A former employee of Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Ltd has succeeded in unfair dismissal and victimisation claims after being dismissed for conduct failings. Remedy is yet to be determined.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed by the respondent.
- The claimant fell asleep on duty, failed to patrol, recorded control room calls inaccurately, and failed to set the alarm.
- The respondent did not observe the ACAS Code of Practice in relation to separation of investigation and decision.
- The claimant's unfair dismissal and victimisation complaints succeeded.
- Remedy is yet to be determined.
Timeline
-
Claimant's reconsideration application
The claimant applied for reconsideration of a judgment dated 18 May 2020 refusing his application to strike out the respondent's response.
-
Respondent's strike out application
The respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claim on grounds including misleading the Tribunal and vexatious conduct.
-
Refusal of both applications
Regional Employment Judge Robertson refused both the claimant's reconsideration application and the respondent's strike out application.
-
Tribunal deliberation
Employment Judge JM Wade deliberated and reached a unanimous reserved decision that the claimant's unfair dismissal and victimisation complaints succeed.
-
Remedy orders issued
The Tribunal issued remedy orders requiring the claimant to provide disclosure and directing the parties to seek to agree remedy.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal for conduct (falling asleep on duty, failing to patrol, inaccurate call records, and failing to set an alarm) was unfair, and whether it amounted to victimisation.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and victimisation against Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Ltd.
Key reasons:
- The respondent failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice by not separating the investigation and decision-making roles.
- The claimant's victimisation claim also succeeded.
Compensation is yet to be determined at a remedy hearing. The tribunal has ordered the claimant to provide disclosure of earnings and other documents to enable remedy to be agreed or assessed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers should ensure that the person investigating misconduct is not the same person who decides on dismissal, to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice.
- Victimisation claims can succeed alongside unfair dismissal claims if the dismissal is linked to a protected act.
- Tribunals may order disclosure of post-dismissal earnings to calculate compensation, so claimants should keep records.
- Even where an employee has committed misconduct, procedural failings can make a dismissal unfair.
What this case shows
This case illustrates how procedural errors can undermine an otherwise potentially fair dismissal. The claimant, a former employee of Cerberus Security and Monitoring Services Ltd, was dismissed for several conduct failings: falling asleep on duty, failing to carry out patrols, recording control room calls inaccurately, and failing to set the alarm. However, the tribunal found that the respondent did not observe the ACAS Code of Practice in relation to separating the investigation and decision-making roles. This procedural flaw rendered the dismissal unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
Cerberus Security could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by ensuring that a different manager handled the decision to dismiss than the one who conducted the investigation. The ACAS Code of Practice recommends this separation to ensure impartiality. Additionally, the tribunal also upheld a victimisation claim, suggesting that the dismissal may have been linked to a protected act by the claimant. Employers should be cautious when dismissing employees who have previously raised complaints or exercised statutory rights.
Why the result matters
This decision reinforces the importance of following proper procedures, even when an employee has clearly committed misconduct. The tribunal's willingness to uphold both the unfair dismissal and victimisation claims shows that procedural failings can have significant consequences. For employees in similar situations, this case demonstrates that a dismissal can be challenged successfully if the employer has not followed the ACAS Code, regardless of the underlying conduct. Remedy will be determined at a later hearing, and the amount of compensation will depend on the claimant's post-dismissal earnings and other factors.
Similar cases
Pregnant employee dismissed without risk assessment: discrimination and unfair dismissal
A tribunal found that VPS PVT Limited unfairly dismissed a pregnant employee and discriminated against her by failing to carry out a health and safety risk assessment. The claimant was awarded £23,823.50 in compensation.
Dismissed without notice and discriminated against: a double blow for a former employee
A former employee was unfairly dismissed, wrongfully dismissed without notice, and discriminated against on grounds of sex. The tribunal awarded £16,208.68, including an uplift for the employer's failure to follow the ACAS code.
Tutor unfairly dismissed after employer mistakenly accepted resignation
A tutor with three years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer wrongly believed she had resigned. The tribunal awarded £1,499.54 for breach of contract and unlawful deduction of wages.
Claims struck out after signing COT3: tribunal finds no abuse of process
A former employee who signed a settlement agreement and later brought new claims had her case struck out as an abuse of process. The tribunal found she had mental capacity when signing.