We explore two recent tribunal outcomes - Mr M Rakib v Mitie Limited and Mr. A Mullinger v Ministry of Justice.
Mr M Rakib v Mitie Limited
Further to the article in last months’ newsletter about employee monitoring, a Security Manager, employed by Mitie, working at the BBC, has been awarded compensation for wrongful dismissal over CCTV misuse.
The Security Manager was dismissed in May 2023 for alleged gross misconduct because he had reviewed 12 hours of CCTV footage at BBC Wales to identify who had made a mess in the kitchen. He was accused of breaching data protection rules and lacking the correct CCTV licence.
However, at tribunal, the Judge found that:
- The BBC/Mitie had not provided him with sufficient CCTV training, nor had it issued clear operating procedures, meaning he did not know his actions were prohibited.
- The company’s policies did not specify that such actions would constitute gross misconduct.
- There was managerial awareness—or at least no direct prohibition—from leadership regarding his access or use of the CCTV system.
As a result, the tribunal ruled the dismissal was unfair, awarding him £31,637 in compensation.
Human Capital
Read more about Human CapitalRead more
Learning points:
- Clear Policy Language Is Crucial Simply having a data protection or CCTV policy isn't enough. Policies must explicitly outline prohibited actions, such as reviewing footage without proper authorisation.
- Training and Operating Procedures Matter If employees lack formal training or guidance, tribunals may determine they didn't knowingly breach rules. Employers must ensure staff are informed and trained on CCTV usage boundaries.
- Managerial Awareness Could Imply Consent If leadership appeared aware of or tacitly approved an employee's actions, claiming misconduct becomes difficult to uphold. Employers should clarify roles and approvals clearly.
- Gross Misconduct Needs Strong Grounds Labelling an act as gross misconduct requires it to be clearly defined and predictable from written rules. Without clear policy and communication, tribunals often favour the employee.
- Unfair Dismissal Risks Are Real Even where policy exists, poor implementation or lack of clarity can make dismissal unfair - potentially leading to costly tribunal outcomes.
Mr. A Mullinger v Ministry of Justice
A former prison officer at Holme House prison in County Durham, Andrew Mullinger, was diagnosed with epilepsy in early 2023 and subsequently placed on restricted duties—he was barred from carrying keys or interacting directly with prisoners due to safety concerns. Despite medical evidence suggesting he could return to full duties within two years once properly treated, the Ministry of Justice dismissed him in March 2023, stating he had not shown "good and effective service" because of time spent on restricted duties and recent absences.
The Employment Tribunal, ruled in favour of Mr Mullinger and found:
- Disability discrimination occurred due to failure to consider other reasonable adjustments, such as redeploying him to an administrative role or placing him on medical suspension instead of dismissal.
- The high rate of absences related to his condition had influenced the dismissal decision.
- As a result, his dismissal constituted both unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
Mr Mullinger was awarded approximately £445,000 in compensation.
Learning points:
- Explore Reasonable Adjustments Seriously Employers must go beyond the immediate safety concern and proactively consider appropriate alternative roles or flexibility to accommodate disabled employees. Dismissing without such consideration can lead to liability.
- Medical Advice Must Inform - but Not Limit - Decisions While safety assessments are valid, failing to use medical advice to guide a phased or supported return can result in discrimination claims.
- Absence Due to Disability Must Be Handled Carefully Utilising absences linked to a disability as grounds for dismissal, without appropriate adjustments, risks tribunals viewing the dismissal as discriminatory.
- Administrative Roles Can Be a Viable Alternative If operational limitations exist (e.g., no access to keys for safety), practical administrative alternatives should be explored rather than defaulting to termination.
- High Compensation for Disability Discrimination The tribunal award highlights how costly such claims can be - reflecting both financial consequences and career impact.
- Documentation and Process Matter Employers should document every step: exploring adjustments, consulting medical professionals, and communicating options to the employee. This helps demonstrate good-faith consideration and procedural fairness.
HR Solutions are here to provide guidance and support to you when faced with difficult situations. We can support you through the process along with providing supporting documents including, template letters and scripts for meetings.
