Case 2302672/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Robert v Trigion Security Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302672/2019
- Decision date
- 6 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Robert
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Robert brought claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages arising out of allegations that he had damaged a chair at work, left site early and been under the influence of cannabis. The tribunal recorded that the Respondent investigated the incident, suspended him, held disciplinary and appeal hearings, and dismissed him for misconduct. It found that the dismissal reason was misconduct, namely the Respondent’s belief that he had been smoking cannabis, broken the chair and left duty early without authorisation.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal accepted that the dismissing and appeal officers held a genuine belief in misconduct and rejected any suggestion of ulterior motive. It noted some weaknesses in the investigation, particularly around documentation of further witness discussions, but held that the Respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief and that the decision to dismiss fell within the range of reasonable responses. The tribunal also took account of the security context, the educational site, the Respondent’s reliance on its officers’ reputation with clients, and the fact that the alleged conduct was treated as gross misconduct under policy. It found that any procedural flaws did not make the dismissal unfair and, in any event, considered the Claimant would have been dismissed anyway.
On wrongful dismissal, the tribunal applied the balance of probabilities test and distinguished that issue from the unfair dismissal analysis. It did not find it more likely than not that the Claimant had taken cannabis, but it did find it more likely than not that he broke the chair and then left his duty without permission and without informing colleagues or control. The tribunal held that this conduct, in the context of his role as a security guard at an educational site, was serious enough to justify dismissal without notice. The unlawful deduction of wages claim was conceded by the Respondent, and the tribunal ordered payment of £771.12 subject to tax and National Insurance.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the dismissal was for misconduct, held the Respondent had a genuine belief on reasonable grounds after a reasonable investigation, and found dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Applying the balance of probabilities, the tribunal found the Claimant had broken the chair and left his duty early without permission, which was sufficient to justify summary dismissal without notice. It did not find cannabis use proved on balance. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Respondent conceded this claim by the end of the hearing and agreed to pay the sum ordered. | Upheld | — | £771 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £771
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98 ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- range of reasonable responses
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.