Security officer with 17 years' service dismissed for refusing hand sanitiser checks: unfair but heavily reduced award
A security officer who refused to carry out hand sanitiser checks was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed investigation, but his 75% contribution and a 90% Polkey reduction meant he received only £5,281.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was a Security Officer with continuous service from 12 May 2004.
- He was issued a final written warning for abusing sick leave and refusing to provide flight details.
- He was dismissed for twice refusing to carry out hand sanitiser checks during patrols.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair due to a flawed investigation.
- The claimant's conduct contributed 75% to his dismissal.
- The tribunal found a 90% chance he would have been dismissed even with a fair process.
Timeline
-
Grievance raised
The claimant and a colleague raised a collective grievance about changes to tasks and shift patterns.
-
Sickness absence and travel to Nigeria
The claimant reported sick with gastroenteritis and flew to Nigeria the same day, later refusing to provide flight details.
-
Final written warning issued
The claimant received a final written warning for abusing the sickness policy and refusing to provide documentation.
-
First refusal of sanitiser check
The claimant refused his line manager's instruction to perform a hand sanitiser check.
-
Second refusal and suspension
The claimant again refused the sanitiser check and was suspended pending investigation.
-
Dismissal
The disciplinary hearing proceeded in the claimant's absence and he was dismissed for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal dismissed
The claimant's appeal against dismissal was rejected.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair but dismissed the detriment claim.
-
Remedy judgment
The claimant was awarded £5,281.20 by consent.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the security officer was unfairly dismissed for refusing to follow an instruction to carry out hand sanitiser checks, and whether he was subjected to a detriment for trade union activities.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair due to a flawed investigation, but dismissed the detriment claim.
Key reasons:
- The investigation into the refusal was inadequate, making the dismissal procedurally unfair.
- However, the claimant's conduct (refusing the instruction) contributed 75% to his dismissal.
- There was a 90% chance he would have been dismissed even with a fair process (Polkey reduction).
Compensation:
- Total award: £5,281.20 (by consent)
- No breakdown provided in the facts.
Lessons & takeaways
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a thorough investigation before dismissal, even if the misconduct appears clear-cut.
- Refusing a reasonable instruction can be treated as gross misconduct, especially when under a final written warning.
- A flawed investigation can make a dismissal unfair, but compensation may be heavily reduced if the employee contributed to their own dismissal.
- Union activity claims require evidence that the employer knew about the activity and acted because of it.
- Polkey reductions can significantly reduce compensation if the tribunal finds a fair process would still have led to dismissal.
This case shows how even a long-serving employee can be dismissed for refusing a straightforward instruction, and how procedural flaws can make that dismissal unfair – but also how the employee's own conduct can dramatically reduce any compensation.
The security officer had worked for the company for 17 years and was under a final written warning for previous misconduct. When he twice refused his line manager's instruction to check hand sanitiser stations during patrols, he was suspended, investigated, and dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal found that the investigation was flawed – for example, it did not properly consider the officer's explanation or the context of his earlier grievance about changes to duties. This made the dismissal procedurally unfair.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer could have conducted a more thorough investigation, including speaking to the officer about his reasons for refusing and considering whether the instruction was reasonable in light of his earlier grievance. A fair process might have still led to dismissal, but it would have been harder for the officer to challenge.
Why the result matters
The case is a reminder that procedural fairness matters, but also that employees who contribute to their own dismissal – here, by refusing an instruction – can see their compensation heavily reduced. The tribunal applied a 75% reduction for contributory conduct and a 90% Polkey reduction, meaning the officer received only £5,281.20 despite winning his unfair dismissal claim. The detriment claim failed because the employer was unaware of his union role at the time of the warning.
For employees, the lesson is clear: even if you disagree with an instruction, refusing it outright carries serious risks, especially if you are already on a final warning. For employers, the case underscores the importance of a fair investigation, even when the misconduct seems obvious.
Similar cases
Café manager with 17 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy and missed vacancy
A café manager with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to inform her of a sales assistant vacancy during redundancy consultation. The tribunal awarded £560.28 after applying a 66.7% Polkey reduction.
Transport coordinator dismissed for tachograph breach wins unfair dismissal claim
A transport coordinator with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being sacked for driving without a tachograph card. The tribunal found the employer failed to consider her mitigation and awarded £5,991.
18-year driver dismissed after two receipt breaches: totting-up upheld despite delay
An employment tribunal has upheld the dismissal of a cash-in-transit driver with 18 years' service who was sacked for breaching the 'golden rule' twice while under a final written warning, despite a 130-day delay in the disciplinary process.
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.