Mr J Flaherty, Solicitor’s Agent v Axis Security Services Limited — 2019

The claimant had worked for six years as a receptionist at No 1 Leeds and had transferred to the respondent under TUPE. The tribunal found that BNP Paribas, the building manager, had a contractual right to require removal of security staff from site, and that the respondent's dismissal decision was driven by third-party pressure after a series of complaints about parking management, alleged misuse of IT equipment, and alleged xenophobic comments.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal identified the potentially fair reason as some other substantial reason under section 98(1)(b) ERA 1996, namely third-party pressure. It applied the section 98(4) ERA 1996 reasonableness test, referring to Henderson v Connect (South Tyneside) Ltd and Dobie v Burns International on the steps expected where a client wants an employee removed. The tribunal found that the respondent investigated the complaints itself, did not immediately accede to the client's wish for permanent removal, asked the client to reinstate the claimant after a final written warning, and then considered redeployment when the client refused.

The tribunal accepted that the respondent's internal process was poor and that it had failed to comply properly with its own disciplinary procedure and the ACAS Code, but it held that those shortcomings did not make the dismissal unfair on the facts of this case. It placed weight on the claimant's lack of an SIA licence, the absence of any suitable alternative receptionist role in the respondent's northern region, and the fact that she had not indicated she was willing to obtain a licence or travel to other areas. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.

On victimisation, the tribunal treated the claimant's grievance against Mr Maroof, including allegations potentially amounting to sexual harassment, as a protected act for section 27 Equality Act 2010 purposes. It relied on Martin v Devonshire Solicitors and Orr v Milton Keynes Council to distinguish the reason for the respondent's act from the surrounding circumstances. The tribunal held that the respondent's decision to remove and then dismiss the claimant was not shown to have been because she had done a protected act, and that Mr Simpson's later reference to a possible 'false grievance' was insufficient to fix a retaliatory reason on the respondent. The victimisation claim was also dismissed.