Mr Aliu Adegbenro v Axis Security Services Limited — 2022

Mr Adegbenro was employed as a security officer at Hatfield Business Park from 1 June 2017. After complaints arising from incidents on 16 June and 14 July 2020, the respondent investigated and held a disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found that the misconduct allegations were upheld at that hearing, but that the actual disciplinary sanction imposed was a final written warning, not dismissal.

The dismissal issue arose because the client, Workman FM, would not allow the claimant back on site after the complaints. The tribunal accepted that the respondent asked the client to reconsider, including by email from Mr Lyons, but that the client refused to change its position. The tribunal also found that the claimant’s contract expressly contemplated client removal from an assignment and possible redeployment or changes in travel and hours.

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was some other substantial reason within s.98(1)(b) ERA 1996, namely third-party pressure from the client, and rejected the claimant’s case that the removal documents were fabricated or that he had a contractual right to remain on the Hatfield site for 48 hours. It also found that the claimant was not suspended; he was on sick absence until fit to return and then worked at an alternative site pending the disciplinary process.

On fairness under s.98(4) ERA 1996, the tribunal held that the respondent acted reasonably. It considered that the respondent had done what it reasonably could to avoid the injustice caused by the client’s stance by trying to persuade the client to change its mind and by looking for alternative work. The tribunal found that the claimant was offered vacancies, including a 36-hour Area Support Officer role, and that other vacancies were either unsuitable or not available, including the KAO Data Centre role, which had already been filled. The claimant’s unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed.