Security officer dismissed after grievance over face mask policy: tribunal upholds employer's decision
A security officer with only seven months' service was fairly dismissed for aggressive behaviour and misuse of the grievance policy after repeatedly challenging his employer's face mask rules during the pandemic. The tribunal rejected all claims of automatic unfair dismissal and discrimination.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #face-mask-policy
- #covid-19
- #grievance-abuse
- #aggressive-behaviour
- #client-complaint
- #conspiracy-allegation
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Security Officer at the BBC site from 13 January 2020.
- The claimant repeatedly raised concerns about wearing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a grievance against his manager.
- On 15 July 2020, the claimant was involved in an incident where he was alleged to have been aggressive and overbearing towards a manager in the presence of a BBC client.
- The claimant was dismissed on 14 August 2020 for gross misconduct, including aggressive behaviour and misuse of the grievance policy.
- The claimant's complaints of automatic unfair dismissal, race discrimination, age discrimination, and unlawful deduction from wages were all dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started work as a Security Officer at the BBC site.
-
First mask incident
Mr Thomas asked the claimant to remove a bandana worn as a face covering, citing company policy.
-
Claimant emails about mask policy
The claimant emailed Mr Thomas requesting written confirmation that he was not allowed to wear a mask.
-
Mask policy changed
The respondent permitted employees to wear plain face masks following government guidance.
-
Claimant raised formal grievance
The claimant emailed a grievance against Mr Thomas, alleging discrimination and health and safety concerns.
-
Incident with manager
The claimant confronted Mr Baquero about a bag search, leading to allegations of aggressive behaviour witnessed by a BBC client.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was suspended on full pay pending a disciplinary investigation.
-
Disciplinary hearing
The claimant attended a disciplinary hearing where he was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal confirmed
The claimant's employment was terminated with effect from this date.
-
Appeal hearing
The claimant's appeal against dismissal was heard and rejected.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising health and safety concerns about face masks, whether he was directly discriminated against because of his race or age, and whether there was an unlawful deduction from wages during his suspension.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's complaints.
- Automatic unfair dismissal: The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's aggressive behaviour towards a manager in front of a client and his misuse of the grievance procedure, not his health and safety concerns. The claimant did not have the two years' service needed to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
- Race and age discrimination: The tribunal found no evidence that the claimant was treated less favourably because of his race or age. The employer's actions were consistent with its policies and applied equally to all staff.
- Unlawful deduction from wages: The claimant was suspended on full pay, so there was no deduction. The claim failed.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service cannot bring a claim for ordinary unfair dismissal, only for automatically unfair reasons such as health and safety or whistleblowing.
- Raising a grievance does not give an employee immunity from disciplinary action if they behave aggressively or misuse the process.
- Employers should ensure that disciplinary decisions are based on a genuine belief of misconduct following a reasonable investigation, even if the employee has previously raised concerns.
- Tribunals will look at the real reason for dismissal, not just the employee's stated concerns, to determine if it was automatically unfair.
This case highlights the risks for employees who raise grievances but then act in a way that gives their employer grounds for dismissal. The security officer, who had only been employed for seven months, became embroiled in a series of disputes with his manager over the company's face mask policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. While he was entitled to raise concerns, the tribunal found that his conduct escalated into aggressive behaviour towards another manager in front of a BBC client, and that he abused the grievance process by making unfounded allegations of conspiracy.
What the employer did right
Mitie Security carried out a thorough investigation, including interviewing witnesses and reviewing CCTV footage. The disciplinary hearing considered the claimant's explanation but concluded that his behaviour amounted to gross misconduct. The appeal process was also properly conducted. The tribunal noted that the employer genuinely believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct, and that this belief was reasonable based on the evidence available.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant's main mistake was to combine his legitimate health and safety concerns with aggressive behaviour and misuse of the grievance procedure. If he had confined himself to raising his concerns through proper channels without confronting managers in front of clients, he might have avoided dismissal. He also lacked the two years' service needed to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, which meant his only hope was to prove automatic unfair dismissal – a high bar that he failed to clear.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employees do not have unlimited protection when raising grievances. While it is important to speak up about health and safety, the manner in which concerns are raised matters. Tribunals will examine the real reason for dismissal and will not automatically side with an employee simply because they had previously raised a grievance. For employers, the case shows that a fair process and a genuine belief in misconduct can successfully defend a dismissal, even when the employee has raised prior concerns.
Similar cases
Support worker dismissed for refusing face mask: tribunal upholds conduct dismissal
A support worker with 7 years' service was fairly dismissed after refusing to wear a face mask or a visor in the office. The tribunal found the employer acted within the band of reasonable responses.
Dismissed for refusing to work from home during Covid: a conduct decision that went too far
A customer service advisor with Ménière's disease was unfairly dismissed after refusing to work from home when her face shield was banned. The tribunal reduced her compensation by 75% for her own conduct.
Refusing to wear PPE and follow safety instructions: gross misconduct dismissal upheld
A Process Improvement Leader who refused to wear face masks and glasses during the pandemic and behaved aggressively towards managers was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct, the tribunal ruled.
Social worker's race discrimination claim over 'aggressive' stereotype dismissed
A black social worker with 15 years' service lost her claims of race discrimination and constructive dismissal after an altercation with a white colleague. The tribunal found no evidence of stereotyping or unfair treatment.