Security worker arrested over CCTV incident unfairly dismissed

A security supervisor who was arrested during a police investigation into alleged misuse of CCTV footage was unfairly dismissed after the employer failed to make reasonable efforts to redeploy him. The claimant worked as a security supervisor at a large hospital site and was among 16 security staff arrested as part of an investigation into improper access and sharing of CCTV material.

All individuals were suspended by their security contractor employer while police enquiries continued. The hospital informed the security contractor that anyone still under investigation would not be allowed back on site. The employer subsequently dismissed the claimant, citing pressure from the hospital and the financial impact of holding multiple staff on paid suspension.

The claimant joined the company in 2020 and was promoted to a supervisory role the following year. Staff were issued with body-worn cameras, but the tribunal heard that no structured training had been provided on how to use the equipment or manage related data.

Access to the system storing footage was shared between all security officers. Police arrested the entire team after concerns that CCTV material had been accessed and shared inappropriately. Officers were later told that the investigation could take several months, during which none of those arrested could return to the hospital.

During internal meetings, the employer advised the claimant that alternative roles might be available but would likely be limited to non-security positions due to the ongoing investigation. The claimant was directed to review vacancies on the company’s website and apply for anything suitable.

The tribunal ruled that while third-party pressure can be a potentially fair reason for dismissal, the employer had a responsibility to meaningfully consider redeployment options. It found that:

The employer took no proactive steps to help the claimant identify suitable roles.
The claimant was simply told to check the vacancy list without support or discussion.
No efforts were made to understand the claimant’s skills, interests, or willingness to consider alternative roles, including lower-graded positions.
The claimant’s mental health difficulties should have prompted greater support and more careful handling of the redeployment process.

The tribunal concluded that the employer’s approach fell outside the range of reasonable responses expected of an organisation in these circumstances.

When employers rely on client or third-party demands as a reason for dismissal, they must still demonstrate thorough attempts to find other work for the affected employee. Merely signposting open vacancies is not sufficient; employers are expected to actively engage with the process, discuss potential roles, and document the steps taken. Should you wish to discuss this subject, contact 121 HR Solutions at enquiries@121hrsolutions.co.uk.

Security worker arrested over CCTV incident unfairly dismissed

121 HR Solutions Ltd