Mr Chaudhry Ali v G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Ltd Heard — 2023

The claimant worked as a security officer for G4S from 12 February 2017. In late 2020 the SIA revoked his security licence after a DBS check revealed an undisclosed racially aggravated public order conviction. The respondent placed him on unpaid suspension from 7 December 2020, consulted under its Restriction of Work guidance, and terminated his employment with effect from 11 February 2021 after an internal appeal was heard and rejected. The tribunal found that, under section 11(6) of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, the licence remained in force during the appeal period, so the respondent’s guidance that he could not work was wrong.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996, the tribunal accepted that Mr Dezeure held a genuine belief that the claimant could not legally work, but found that belief was not held on reasonable grounds. Mr Dezeure had seen the SIA’s own guidance stating that a licence remains valid during an appeal, but he did not resolve the conflict between that guidance and HR’s contrary advice. The tribunal held that no reasonable employer would have left the matter unresolved and simply followed HR instructions. It also found that Mr Khan’s appeal process did not cure the defect, because he did not properly investigate the legal position and repeated the same mistaken approach.

The section 15 Equality Act 2010 claim was dismissed. The respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled by PTSD and that dismissal was unfavourable treatment, but the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was the licence issue, not the claimant’s sickness absence. It therefore held that the claimant had not shown a prima facie case that he was dismissed because of something arising in consequence of his disability. The tribunal did not need to decide the respondent’s knowledge or constructive knowledge of the disability in order to dispose of the claim.

The tribunal held that the ACAS Code did not apply because the dismissal was not a disciplinary case involving culpable conduct, so no uplift could be awarded. By consent, the respondent was ordered to pay £2,937.60 gross in settlement of the holiday pay claim and £5,508.00 gross for unlawful deductions from wages during unpaid suspension, both subject to lawful deductions. The whistleblowing claims and the notice pay claim were withdrawn, and the tribunal noted that a further hearing would be listed to determine remedy on the successful claims, including the claimant’s request for reinstatement.