Security officer dismissed for sleeping on duty: employer's decision upheld
A security officer with 11 years' service was fairly dismissed after video evidence showed her apparently sleeping on duty. The tribunal upheld G4S's decision, finding the employer acted reasonably.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a security officer from 4 August 2008 until dismissal on 23 January 2020.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct after a video showed her with eyes closed and motionless while on duty.
- The claimant had a previous final written warning for assaulting a team leader.
- The respondent conducted an investigation, disciplinary hearing, and appeal before dismissing the claimant.
- The tribunal found the respondent had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct and acted reasonably.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a security officer for G4S.
-
Placement at Barking JCP
Claimant worked at DWP Barking premises from about January to September 2019.
-
Assault allegation
Allegation that claimant assaulted team leader Shabbir Ahmed; she was suspended.
-
Disciplinary hearing for assault
Hearing held by Mr Islam; claimant issued final written warning on 18 October 2019.
-
Video received by respondent
Mr Islam received an email from Mr Baig attaching a video showing claimant apparently sleeping on duty.
-
Investigatory interview
Mr Shemar interviewed claimant; she denied sleeping and challenged the video.
-
Disciplinary hearing and dismissal
Mr Islam held disciplinary hearing and summarily dismissed claimant for gross misconduct (sleeping on duty).
-
First appeal hearing (claimant absent)
Claimant did not attend; no communication received.
-
Second appeal hearing (claimant absent)
Claimant again did not attend; appeal dismissed in her absence.
-
Appeal outcome letter
Mr Gregoriades wrote to claimant dismissing her appeal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's decision to dismiss for gross misconduct (sleeping on duty) was within the range of reasonable responses, given the video evidence and the employee's previous final written warning.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims. It found that G4S had a genuine belief in the misconduct based on the video, conducted a reasonable investigation, and followed a fair procedure including an appeal. The claimant's previous final written warning for assault was a relevant factor in the decision to dismiss.
Lessons & takeaways
- Video evidence can be powerful; employers should ensure it is properly obtained and reviewed before relying on it.
- A previous final written warning can make dismissal for a further misconduct more likely to be fair.
- Employers should follow a full disciplinary process, including investigation, hearing, and appeal, to reduce the risk of an unfair dismissal finding.
- Employees should be aware that sleeping on duty, especially in a security role, is likely to be treated as gross misconduct.
When video evidence leads to dismissal
This case shows how a single piece of video evidence can be enough to justify a gross misconduct dismissal, even for a long-serving employee. The security officer had worked for G4S for over 11 years, but a video showing her with eyes closed and motionless while on duty led to her summary dismissal.
What the employer did right
G4S conducted a thorough process: an investigation, a disciplinary hearing, and an appeal. The decision-maker had a genuine belief in the misconduct based on the video, and the tribunal found this belief was reasonable. The claimant's previous final written warning for assaulting a team leader also played a role, as it meant she was already on a final warning.
Why the result matters
For employees in safety-critical roles like security, sleeping on duty is almost certain to be treated as gross misconduct. Even with long service, the employer's response was within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal emphasised that it is not for them to substitute their own view for the employer's, as long as the employer acted reasonably. This case reinforces that employers can rely on clear evidence and a fair process to defend dismissal decisions.
Similar cases
Night care assistant dismissed for sleeping on duty: unfair dismissal for lack of disciplinary hearing
A night care assistant with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after being seen asleep on duty, because her employer did not hold a disciplinary hearing before sacking her. The tribunal awarded £962.79, reduced by 75% for her contributory conduct.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
Car valet dismissed for abusive language: procedural unfairness but no compensation awarded
A car valet with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after using foul language towards a colleague, but the tribunal awarded no compensation because his conduct wholly caused his dismissal.
Tanker driver dismissed for delayed incident report: procedural failure but fair outcome
A tanker driver was unfairly dismissed after failing to report dropping a hose on her foot, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway, awarding only £807.