Security officer dismissed for leaving post: tribunal finds investigation fell short
A security officer with nearly five years' service was unfairly dismissed after leaving his post for a break and prayers. The tribunal found the employer's investigation was inadequate, failing to obtain CCTV or witness statements.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a security officer from 13 July 2015 until dismissal on 6 February 2020.
- The claimant had a final written warning for leaving his post and verbal assault, expiring 19 February 2020.
- On 17 January 2020, the claimant left his post for a break and prayers, returning at 1400 as per his agreed schedule.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct without adequate investigation into CCTV or witness statements.
- The claimant's holiday request in September 2019 was never responded to, and he was not encouraged to take leave.
- The claimant's race and religion discrimination claims failed due to lack of evidence.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as a security officer.
-
Final written warning
Claimant received a final written warning for leaving his post and verbal assault, valid for one year.
-
Holiday request
Claimant requested 10 days' holiday from 18-29 November 2019; request was never processed.
-
Imposed holiday
Claimant took 6 days' holiday imposed by the respondent.
-
Incident
Claimant left his post for a break and prayers; returned at 1400 as per his agreed schedule.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing for gross misconduct.
-
Dismissal
Claimant summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the dismissal.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal heard by Mr Harre; decision upheld.
-
ACAS early conciliation
Claimant contacted ACAS.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer acted reasonably in dismissing the security officer for gross misconduct by leaving his post, and whether the investigation and decision fell within the band of reasonable responses.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal. It found that the employer failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, including not obtaining CCTV footage or witness statements, and did not properly consider the claimant's explanation that he was following his agreed schedule. The discrimination claims based on race and religion were dismissed due to lack of evidence. The holiday pay claim was also upheld, as the employer had not responded to the claimant's holiday request and later imposed holiday without proper process. The remedy hearing is yet to be scheduled.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must conduct a thorough investigation before dismissing for gross misconduct, including gathering all relevant evidence such as CCTV and witness statements.
- A failure to respond to an employee's holiday request can lead to a successful holiday pay claim, even if the claim is brought slightly out of time.
- Employees who bring discrimination claims need to provide evidence linking the treatment to a protected characteristic; a mere difference in treatment is not enough.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the importance of a fair investigation before dismissing an employee for gross misconduct. The security officer had nearly five years of service and a final written warning that was due to expire. On the day in question, he left his post for a break and prayers, but returned at the agreed time. The employer dismissed him without obtaining CCTV footage or witness statements, and without properly considering his explanation. The tribunal found this fell outside the range of reasonable responses.
What the employer could have done differently
Atalian Servest Security Ltd could have avoided the unfair dismissal finding by conducting a more thorough investigation. They should have reviewed CCTV footage, spoken to witnesses, and considered the claimant's account that he was following his agreed schedule. They also failed to properly handle the claimant's holiday request, which led to a successful holiday pay claim. A simple response to the holiday request and a more balanced investigation could have changed the outcome.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case serves as a reminder that even in conduct dismissals, the employer must follow a fair process. The ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures sets out the expected standards, and failure to adhere can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal. Employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed should note that the tribunal will scrutinise the investigation and the reasonableness of the employer's actions. The case also shows that discrimination claims require solid evidence; without it, they are likely to fail.
Similar cases
Dismissed during long-term sick leave: a capability decision that went too fast
A behaviour lead with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed after her employer relied on outdated medical reports and failed to follow its own sickness procedure. The tribunal awarded £23,222, including £9,000 for injury to feelings.
Legal executive unfairly dismissed after flawed disciplinary process
A legal executive was unfairly dismissed by ODT Professional Services Limited after a disciplinary process that the tribunal found fundamentally unfair. She was awarded £2,621.57 after reductions for contributory fault and the chance she would have been dismissed anyway.
Senior lecturer with 27 years' service dismissed for bullying: tribunal upholds university's decision
A senior lecturer and course director with 27 years' service was fairly dismissed for bullying and harassment after a lengthy internal process. The tribunal rejected all claims of race discrimination, victimisation, and whistleblowing detriment.
Practice nurse dismissed for gross misconduct: flawed process but dismissal inevitable
A practice nurse with 46 years' experience was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed disciplinary process, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced her compensation by 60% for her own conduct. She was awarded £1,610.66.