Claimant v CIS Security Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the respondent had a potentially fair reason for dismissal (conduct). The claimant failed to maintain contact during a six-week absence due to custody and after release, failed to inform the SIA about criminal charges as statutorily required, and refused to engage with the disciplinary process. The dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair and fell within the band of reasonable responses.
Withdrawn by claimant during the hearing because it would constitute double recovery alongside the notice pay claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant's conduct amounted to gross misconduct: prolonged unauthorised absence, failure to maintain communication, failure to comply with statutory obligation to inform the SIA about criminal charges, and refusal to engage with investigation and disciplinary process. This entitled the respondent to dismiss without notice, so the claimant was not entitled to notice pay.
The tribunal found that the contract provided for forfeiture of holiday pay in the event of dismissal for gross misconduct. Additionally, the claimant was paid hourly and had not worked any hours after 28 January 2024, so did not accrue any annual leave for pay during the relevant leave year (1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024).
Facts
The claimant was a security officer for almost 9 years. He was arrested for assault on 2 February 2024 and contacted his manager twice from custody. He was remanded for six weeks and released on 26 March 2024, leaving only a brief voicemail. He failed to return to work, engage with the disciplinary process, or inform the SIA about criminal charges as statutorily required. He acted through a lay representative who gave incorrect advice about SIA requirements and wrongly asserted a right to represent him in internal disciplinary proceedings. The respondent held hearings in his absence and dismissed him for gross misconduct on 10 June 2024.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The dismissal was fair: the claimant's cumulative conduct (prolonged unauthorised absence, failure to communicate, failure to comply with statutory SIA notification requirements, and refusal to engage with disciplinary process) amounted to gross misconduct within the band of reasonable responses. The claimant was not entitled to notice pay or holiday pay. The tribunal was critical of the lay representative's unhelpful intervention and incorrect advice.
Practical note
An employee in custody must still maintain appropriate communication with their employer after release, and failure to comply with statutory regulatory requirements (here, SIA licensing obligations) combined with refusal to engage with disciplinary procedures can constitute gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal even after long service.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2306263/2024
- Decision date
- 12 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Response Security Officer
- Service
- 9 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep