Mr R Lidford v Winn’s Security Services Limited — 2021

The claimant, Mr R Lidford, was employed by Winn's Security Services Limited from 1 October 1993 until he was dismissed with immediate effect on 21 September 2020. He brought claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal after being dismissed following investigation and disciplinary meetings on 14 and 17 September 2020. The tribunal found that the respondent's process was defective because the CCTV stills were not shown in advance of the disciplinary hearing, the allegations shifted during the process, and no appeal was properly provided, contrary to ACAS Code paragraphs 9 and 26.

On the facts, the tribunal found that the CCTV stills were not of the urination incident alleged by the respondent, but of another time when the claimant stepped outside. It accepted that he had urinated outside and found, on the evidence, that he had left the barrier up and the entrance unsecured when he went to the toilet block. The tribunal considered his long service and the absence of previous disciplinary action, but concluded that dismissal for the security breach would still have fallen within the range of reasonable responses and that he would have been dismissed in any event after a further four weeks.

The unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded, but compensation was limited. The tribunal calculated a basic award of £3,923.78 after a 75% reduction under s.122(2) ERA 1996, and a compensatory award of £635.82 after applying a 25% uplift under s.207A TULRCA 1992 for ACAS Code breaches and then reducing the award by 75% under s.123(6) ERA 1996 for contributory conduct. The total award was £4,559.60.

The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed. The tribunal held that, on the facts it found, the respondent was entitled to dismiss the claimant without notice because leaving the entrance unsecured was a serious breach of duty in the context of his role as a security guard. As a result, there was no breach of contract and no notice pay was due.