Mr. K Masani v Teamwork UK Limited — 2022

The claimant, Mr K Masani, worked for Teamwork UK Limited at Gatwick airport and had been moved to the oversize outer gauge role by October 2020. The tribunal found that the role involved strict security checks on oversize baggage, including checking the baggage tag, boarding pass, and passenger identity. It accepted that the claimant had been trained for the role and rejected his later assertions that he had not received training or that the respondent had failed to provide PPE.

The dismissal arose after an incident on 31 January 2021 involving a golf bag. The respondent investigated after the airport fined it for baggage not being secured. In the investigation meeting on 7 February 2021, the claimant said he had not checked the boarding pass and had only checked the tag, and he also accepted the scanner was not working. He was suspended on full pay, then invited to a disciplinary hearing on allegations treated by the respondent as gross misconduct.

At the disciplinary hearing the claimant said he understood the documentation and confirmed the investigation account was accurate. The dismissal decision of 15 February 2021 was based on one allegation only: that he had failed to check the passenger's boarding pass and had not visually checked it. The tribunal found that the decision-maker genuinely believed the claimant had committed misconduct, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and acted reasonably in relying on the claimant's admissions. It also found the procedure fair, including the investigation, notice, opportunity to be accompanied, and the employer's decision not to rely on the CCTV at the disciplinary stage.

On appeal, the claimant advanced different accounts, including that he had seen a boarding pass on the passenger's mobile phone, and later that he had seen a paper boarding pass. The tribunal rejected those later explanations, found they were new versions not previously given, and preferred the respondent's evidence that the claimant could not have seen sufficient detail from the distance involved. It held that the appeal chair carried out a further reasonable investigation, considered the video and training records, and that dismissal for a significant security breach fell within the range of reasonable responses. The complaint of unfair dismissal therefore failed.