Case 4109967/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Member W Canning Tribunal Member A Shanahan Mr Ronald Keir v Securitas Security Services (UK) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 4109967/2021
- Decision date
- 13 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Panel members
- W Canning, A Shanahan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member W Canning Tribunal Member A Shanahan Mr Ronald Keir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed after the respondent concluded that he had committed gross misconduct by accessing Aviva CCTV footage without authority and recording it on his mobile phone. The disciplinary decision also referred to alleged non-work use of a customer computer, but the appeal officer dismissed that allegation and upheld dismissal on the CCTV recording issue. The Tribunal found that conduct was the sole and genuine reason for dismissal.
The Tribunal noted shortcomings in the respondent's handling of earlier bullying allegations and in aspects of the disciplinary process, including the absence of some written records, delay in sending the suspension letter, and some lack of clarity between GDPR issues and the CCTV Code of Practice. However, it found that the respondent had a reasonable belief, based on a reasonable investigation, that the claimant had committed gross misconduct, and that summary dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses.
On the whistleblowing claim, the Tribunal found that the claimant's January and July 2020 communications about alleged bullying did not amount to qualifying disclosures. It found that insufficient information had been disclosed and that the claimant did not have a reasonable belief that the matters were in the public interest. It further found that the dismissal resulted from the claimant's unauthorised recording of CCTV footage, not from any alleged protected disclosure.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found conduct was the reason for dismissal and that dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses under section 98(4) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The Tribunal found the claimant had not made protected disclosures because the matters raised were not qualifying disclosures. It also found that, even if protected disclosures had been made, they were not the reason or principal reason for dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
30 references- section 98 ERA 1996
- section 98(4) ERA 1996
- section 103A ERA 1996
- Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson
- W Devis & Sons Ltd v Atkins
- Beatt v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
- BHS v Burchell
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- band of reasonable responses
- Tayeh v Barchester Healthcare Ltd
- Polkey v AE Dayton Services
- ILEA v Gravett
- London Ambulance Service v Small
- Sainsburys plc v Hitt
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- Wilson v Racher
- Eastman Homes Partnership Ltd v Cunningham
- Brito-Babapulle v Ealing Hospital NHS Trust
- West Midlands Co-operative Society Ltd v Tipton
- Taylor v OCS Group
- section 43A ERA 1996
- section 43B ERA 1996
- section 43C ERA 1996
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Kilraine v Wandsworth London Borough Council
- Simpson v Cantor Fitzgerald
- Eiger Securities LLP v Korshunova
- Secure Care UK Ltd v Mott Davis v HMRC? Secure Care UK Ltd v Mott was cited as Secure Care UK Ltd v Mott EA-2019-000977 in the judgment text; included here as named authority only if exact title is as
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.