Case 3311754/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Shamsheer Shah v Alpha Response 2004 Ltd t/a Red Support Services — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311754/2022
- Decision date
- 15 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bansal
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Shamsheer Shah
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Shamsheer Shah worked as a Security Officer and was summarily dismissed by Alpha Response 2004 Ltd on 10 May 2022 after allegations that he left the Galaxy Centre site during working hours on several occasions. The respondent relied on CCTV footage, sign-in/out records, the Daily Occurrence Report book and the evidence of managers. The claimant said he had swapped shifts and was leaving with consent, but the tribunal found the respondent was entitled to reject those explanations on the evidence before it.
Applying section 98(1), (2) and (4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell test, the tribunal held that conduct was the principal reason for dismissal and that the respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief. It found the investigation reasonable overall, including Mr Jones' investigatory meeting and Mr Shodalubi's disciplinary decision, even though the respondent could have interviewed other officers before dismissal and could have disclosed some materials earlier. Those matters were not material defects and did not deprive the claimant of a fair hearing.
The tribunal also held that the overall procedure was fair, notwithstanding a technical breach of the respondent's appeal procedure because no face-to-face appeal meeting was held. Miss Rann reviewed the relevant material, including the CCTV, log sheets and notes, and the tribunal found the appeal process did not render the dismissal unfair. It concluded that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses because the claimant had been warned previously, understood the seriousness of leaving site during working hours, and the respondent treated the conduct as gross misconduct under its disciplinary rules.
The wrongful dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal held that the claimant's unauthorised departure from site during working hours was a breach of contract that fundamentally undermined the employment relationship, so summary dismissal was justified and no notice pay was due.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the respondent dismissed the claimant for conduct, namely leaving site during working hours without authorisation, and held that the investigation, disciplinary process and appeal were overall within the range of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was in breach of contract by leaving the site during working hours without authorisation and held that this conduct fundamentally undermined the employment contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.98(1) and (2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- range of reasonable responses
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Shrestha v Genesis Housing Association Ltd
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Taylor v OCS Group Ltd
- ACAS Code of Practice (2015)
- s.86 ERA 1996
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.