Mr Ziaur Rahman v Vigilant Security (Scotland) Ltd — 2022

Mr Rahman was employed as a Response Security Patrol Officer and was dismissed summarily on 18 February 2021 after CCTV showed him in a vehicle on 1 February 2021 without a seat belt and without a face covering. At the investigation and disciplinary stages he accepted what the footage showed, but relied on mitigation including a doctor’s letter said to relate to a mask exemption, long service, stress, and an otherwise good record. The tribunal found the respondent’s instructions on seat belts and face coverings were clear and reasonable, and that the doctor’s letter did not amount to a certification of exemption.

The tribunal accepted the evidence of the dismissing and appeal officers that the claimant’s conduct was treated as deliberate, that the mitigation was considered, and that the respondent was entitled to conclude the claimant knew what he was doing. Applying section 98 ERA 1996, BHS v Burchell, and the band-of-responses approach in Iceland Frozen Foods, Foley v Post Office, and HSBC Bank v Madden, the tribunal found the dismissal was for conduct and also for resulting loss of trust and confidence amounting to some other substantial reason. It concluded that summary dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses in the circumstances.

The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed, as was the breach of contract claim for notice. The tribunal also recorded that the holiday pay complaint was withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal by consent, and that claims against a respondent described as Croma Proscription Ltd had been withdrawn as of 28 January 2022 and dismissed upon withdrawal by consent. Because the substantive claims failed, no remedies hearing was required.