Claimant v Mitie Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the investigation was inadequate and outside the reasonable range. The respondent failed to investigate the claimant's defences that other DSMs were reviewing CCTV, that he had been instructed he could do so, and that management including the BBC knew of the practice. The respondent did not contact key witness Mark Barwood or check DPA records. The tribunal found the employer pre-judged the claimant's guilt following early contact with the BBC client, creating conscious or subconscious bias. Procedural defects including unreasonable delay and failure to clearly state the GDPR breach also contributed to unfairness.
The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant did not clearly know he was not entitled to review CCTV for activities such as a bag search. There was no clear written policy from the respondent, the SIA licensing position was unclear, and the tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that DSMs routinely undertook such reviews with management knowledge. The claimant did not commit gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal.
Withdrawn by claimant before final hearing
Withdrawn by claimant before final hearing
Withdrawn by claimant before final hearing
Facts
The claimant was a Duty Security Manager at Mitie Limited's BBC Cardiff site from April 2022 until summary dismissal in September 2023. A bullying complaint against him led to an investigation where he mentioned reviewing CCTV to locate a missing bag. This became the focus of a gross misconduct allegation for unlicensed CCTV use and GDPR breach. The claimant maintained he and other DSMs routinely reviewed internal CCTV with management knowledge, had been told licenses were not needed for internal cameras, and had submitted DPAs signed off by BBC security manager Mark Barwood. The investigator emailed the BBC client prejudging the claimant's guilt. The disciplinary and appeal officers failed to investigate the claimant's defences, including not contacting Barwood or checking DPA records showing management knowledge.
Decision
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to inadequate investigation falling outside the reasonable range, failure to investigate key defences, subconscious bias from BBC client pressure, unreasonable delay, and lack of clarity about the GDPR breach alleged. The wrongful dismissal also succeeded as the tribunal found the claimant did not clearly know reviewing CCTV was prohibited given unclear policies, routine practice, and apparent management knowledge. The tribunal declined a Polkey reduction finding the speculation too uncertain, applied a 15% ACAS uplift for procedural failures, and assessed 2.5 years' future loss before the claimant would likely obtain an equivalent management role.
Practical note
Employers must properly investigate employee defences in disciplinary proceedings, particularly where the employee asserts widespread practice known to management, and must not allow client relationship pressures to create bias in decision-making, even subconsciously.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
Respondent failed to comply with ACAS Code on: no fair investigation meeting before disciplinary; unreasonable delay; failure to undertake important investigatory steps; disciplinary rules did not give clear examples of gross misconduct; appeal not dealt with impartially due to subconscious bias from BBC client pressure. 15% uplift applied to compensatory award and notice pay.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1600390/2024
- Decision date
- 2 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Mitie Limited
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Duty Security Manager
- Service
- 10 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister