Dismissed after Amazon demanded removal: third-party pressure as a fair reason
A security officer with five years' service was fairly dismissed after Amazon requested his removal from all its sites and no alternative work was available. The tribunal upheld the employer's decision.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #third-party-pressure
- #security-officer
- #amazon-site
- #client-removal-request
- #no-alternative-work
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a security officer by the respondent from 1 March 2017.
- Amazon requested the claimant's removal from its sites after a harassment complaint.
- The respondent asked Amazon to reconsider multiple times but Amazon refused.
- The respondent had no alternative roles for the claimant within a reasonable commute.
- The claimant was dismissed on 10 January 2022 for some other substantial reason.
- The appeal was heard and dismissed on 7 February 2022.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working as a security officer for the respondent.
-
Claimant off sick
The claimant was off sick from 9 to 23 November 2021.
-
Amazon requested removal
Amazon asked the respondent to remove the claimant from its site after a harassment complaint.
-
Respondent asked Amazon to reconsider
The respondent asked Amazon to reconsider the removal request.
-
Amazon confirmed removal from all sites
Amazon stated the claimant would not be allowed to work on any Amazon site.
-
Investigation meeting
David Knowles held a meeting with the claimant to investigate the allegations.
-
Claimant suspended
The respondent suspended the claimant pending investigation.
-
Formal meeting (aborted)
A formal meeting was held but ended early due to a dispute about recording.
-
Rescheduled formal meeting
The meeting was held; the claimant was told Amazon's decision was final and no alternative roles existed.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed with immediate effect and paid in lieu of notice.
-
Appeal hearing
The appeal was heard by Victoria Smith; the claimant confirmed he could not work outside Reading.
-
Appeal dismissed
The appeal was dismissed by letter.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the employee for 'some other substantial reason' – specifically, third-party pressure from a client (Amazon) that demanded the employee's removal from its sites.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, ruling that the dismissal was fair.
The key reasons were:
- Amazon had the contractual right to request removal of any security officer without giving a reason.
- The employer made multiple attempts to persuade Amazon to reconsider, but Amazon refused.
- The employer had no alternative roles for the claimant within a reasonable commuting distance from Reading.
- The employer followed a fair process, including investigation, a formal meeting, and an appeal.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If your role depends on a client's approval, a client's removal request can be a fair reason for dismissal if the employer has no alternative work.
- Employers should actively try to persuade the client to reconsider and explore all alternative roles before dismissing.
- A fair procedure – including investigation, a formal meeting, and an appeal – is essential even when the reason is third-party pressure.
- Employees should be aware that working on a client's site may make their employment conditional on the client's continued acceptance.
When a client says 'remove this employee'
This case shows how a client's demand can lead to a fair dismissal, even when the employee has done nothing wrong. The security officer had worked for ICTS (UK) Limited for nearly five years, stationed at an Amazon site. In November 2021, Amazon asked for his removal after a harassment complaint. ICTS tried to persuade Amazon to change its mind, but Amazon refused – and confirmed the officer could not work on any Amazon site.
What the employer did right
ICTS did not simply accept Amazon's request at face value. It asked Amazon to reconsider multiple times. When that failed, it investigated the allegations, held a formal meeting, and gave the officer a chance to appeal. Crucially, it looked for alternative roles within a reasonable commute from Reading – but found none. The tribunal noted that the officer himself confirmed he could not work outside Reading. The employer's process was thorough and fair.
Why the result matters
The case confirms that 'some other substantial reason' can include pressure from a third party, provided the employer acts reasonably. The key factors were: the client's contractual right to request removal, the employer's efforts to reverse that decision, and the absence of suitable alternative work. For employees in similar roles – especially those working on client sites – this decision is a reminder that their continued employment may depend on the client's approval. For employers, it reinforces the need to follow a fair procedure and genuinely explore alternatives before dismissing.
Similar cases
Support worker dismissed within an hour of WhatsApp comment: third-party pressure justified dismissal
A support worker was dismissed by email within an hour of posting a comment on a staff WhatsApp group, after the client's parents threatened to remove the client. The tribunal upheld the dismissal as fair due to third-party pressure and futility of procedures.
Dismissed after customer withdrew security badge: a long-serving employee's unfair dismissal claim fails
A Watch Manager with 25 years' service was fairly dismissed after Airbus withdrew his security badge, the tribunal ruled. He was awarded £2,245.67 for unpaid notice pay but his unfair dismissal and age discrimination claims failed.
Dismissed after client demanded removal: unfair dismissal for service desk consultant
An IT help desk consultant was unfairly dismissed after her employer caved to client pressure following a missed handover email. The tribunal awarded £10,787.47, reduced by a third for her own fault.