The Claimant in this case had been employed as a CCTV controller with the Respondent for 16 years. He monitored the footage from the control room of a shopping centre.
In 2022 the Claimant was observed sleeping in the control room for 15 minutes following a spot check carried out by his manager.
The Claimant attended an investigation meeting in which the footage was played. The Claimant stated that he had not been asleep but had wanted to “meditate and think”. He explained that he was shutting his eyes to avoid eye dryness as a result of looking at monitors and screens. The Claimant attended an Occupational Health assessment but did not consent for the report to be shared with the Respondent.
The Claimant attended a disciplinary hearing, and the allegation of gross misconduct was upheld. Therefore, the Claimant was summarily dismissed.
The Claimant took a case of unfair dismissal to the Employment Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that the main issue was whether or not the sanction of dismissal was within the band of reasonable responses and stated that there were “compelling arguments” on both sides.
The Tribunal stated that the investigation was fair and that the Respondent genuinely believed that the misconduct had taken place. It was also acknowledged that his actions could have led to serious consequences.
Ultimately, the Tribunal decided that the most important factor was that the Claimant’s actions were “involuntary not wilful”. The Claimant’s actions didn’t lead to any consequences and the Claimant had an unblemished disciplinary record.
The Tribunal concluded that falling asleep for 15 minutes during the Claimant’s sixth night shift in a row whilst not trivial did not “outweigh his many years of service”. Dismissal was unfair and the appropriate sanction would have been a final written warning.
For employers, this case shows that context is everything. Whilst it was reasonable to conclude that the Claimant was ‘guilty’ of gross misconduct there were other important factors that the Respondent did not give appropriate weight to when deciding on the final sanction.
If you have any questions on any of the issues raised in the above article, please contact Alan Sutherland.