CCTV security officer awarded £20k for unfair dismissal after falling asleep at work
Panel finds the seriousness of dozing off depends on ‘context’ and says claimant should have received a final written warningby Mahalia Mayne 23 June 2025
A CCTV security officer who fell asleep for 15 minutes while on duty has been awarded more than £20,000 in compensation after a tribunal ruled his dismissal was unfair.
The Cambridge tribunal heard that Mr C Okoro, who had spent 16 years working for cleaning, security and facilities services company Bidvest Noonan, claimed he was not asleep but was instead “meditating” and “thinking” while looking away from the monitors to alleviate discomfort from dry eyes.
Despite his long service, the company treated the incident as gross misconduct. However, the tribunal ruled that the dismissal was outside the “band of reasonable responses”.
The judge deemed that a final written warning would have been a more fitting response, given that Okoro’s actions were unintentional. Judge Conley said: “It seems to us that the seriousness of falling asleep on the job is something that very much depends upon its context.”
Okoro succeeded in his claims for both unfair and wrongful dismissal. In a remedy hearing, he was awarded £20,521 in compensation, which included £5,138 for damages of breach of contract in respect of notice, a basic award of £5,210 and compensation for financial losses of £10,172.
Okoro was also ordered to pay Bidvest Noonan £4,030 in costs.
Background
Okoro was employed by Bidvest Noonan as a CCTV controller from 26 November 2006 until his dismissal on 23 December 2022, following an act of gross misconduct.
Over his 16 years of service, Okoro's primary role was to monitor CCTV footage from a control room located at the Xscape shopping centre in Milton Keynes, a client of Bidvest Noonan.
On 1 September 2022, Claire Hawes, soft services manager at Bidvest Noonan, conducted a spot check and observed Okoro apparently asleep at his workstation. She reported her observations by email to her supervisor, Muhammed Choudhry, key account manager, who reviewed the CCTV footage and confirmed that Okoro had been asleep between 5.03am to 5.18am on that day.
The tribunal found both Hawes’s and Choudhry’s observations to be “accurate and reliable” and agreed that Okoro was indeed asleep at the time in question.
On 5 September, Choudhry wrote to Okoro inviting him to attend an investigation meeting on 9 September, where he would have the opportunity to view the CCTV footage.
Okoro denied being asleep, instead claiming that he was simply looking away from the monitors because he had dry eyes and had no intention of sleeping. He also presented evidence of medical treatment for his eye condition.
Despite Okoro’s claims, the tribunal found that while his eye discomfort might have been a factor, the evidence showed that Okoro was indeed asleep during the observed time.
The tribunal was also informed that the day in question was Okoro’s sixth consecutive night shift and that his shifts typically followed a ‘four on, four off’ pattern. Choudhry testified that this shift pattern was not unusual for employees in Okoro’s role and many staff members regularly worked additional shifts as overtime.
In response to Okoro’s complaints about his eyes, Choudhry consulted with Bidvest Noonan’s HR department and referred Okoro for an occupational health assessment. However, Okoro declined to provide permission for the results of this assessment to be shared with the company.
On 9 December 2022, Choudhry completed an investigation report, concluding that Okoro had fallen asleep on duty. This was deemed a matter of gross misconduct, which could result in dismissal.
The tribunal heard that Bidvest Noonan's disciplinary policy lists many forms of misconduct, such as poor timekeeping, unsatisfactory work standards and inappropriate attitude or demeanor, among other things. The policy defines gross misconduct as purposeful breaches of contract, standards, rules and regulations, and theft of money or property, among other things.
However, Adelina Hritulac, operations manager appointed to handle disciplinary hearings, asserted that the version of the disciplinary policy submitted to the tribunal was an earlier draft. She stated that the version she was relying upon did include ‘sleeping on duty’ as being a specified act of gross misconduct. Nonetheless, the tribunal concluded that, if this had been the case, given the central importance of this issue to this claim, the correct version would have been submitted to the tribunal as part of the bundle. They therefore determined that sleeping on duty was not “itemised” in this way and that Hrituliac was incorrect.
Okoro received a letter on 15 December, confirming his dismissal, effective from 10 December. The tribunal heard that Okoro chose not to appeal the decision, instead filing a claim with the employment tribunals on 13 February 2023.
Judge’s comments
The tribunal concluded that Bidvest Noonan conducted a fair investigation and that the belief of misconduct was genuine. However, the central issue for employment judge Conley and the panel was whether the dismissal fell within the “band of reasonable responses”.
The tribunal noted that there were “compelling arguments” both for and against dismissal in this case.
They acknowledged that Okoro was solely responsible for monitoring the CCTV cameras, which was a vital component of Bidvest Noonan's client's security services.
The tribunal emphasised the critical necessity of this duty in ensuring that the client's contractual obligations were fulfilled. Failing to perform this task correctly and remaining awake during shifts was deemed essential to the respondent's service agreement.
The panel further acknowledged that Okoro's failure to remain awake may have had serious implications, including contract cancellation, which could have caused financial and reputational harm to the respondent. Additionally, the tribunal highlighted that the security of the site had been compromised for the 15 minutes that Okoro was asleep, which could have significant repercussions.
However, the judge and panel ruled that the seriousness of falling asleep on the job was something that very much depended upon context.
“We appreciate that, in this case, the claimant was asleep for rather more than a few seconds (15 minutes to be exact), but nevertheless we do find that these facts are rather closer to the less serious end of the spectrum, principally because of the fact that his actions were involuntary not wilful, and that, although there was undoubtedly the potential for there to be serious consequences caused by this incident, we have regard to the fact that the potential was limited (for the reasons previously given) and that none were caused,” the judgment added.
Conley and the panel also concluded that Okoro's duration of spotless service was the most important criteria in avoiding summary dismissal. They further stated that Okoro had no disciplinary record during his 16-year tenure. “In our judgment, while plainly serious, this does not outweigh his many years of service and the decision to dismiss was outside the band of reasonable responses and was unfair. He should have been given a final written warning,” Conley added.
Lawyer’s comments
Jainika Patel, senior associate at Freeths, said the action of falling asleep while on duty was no doubt a matter of serious concern. “This case found that the employer undertook a fair investigation and genuinely believed the employee had fallen asleep,” she said.
“Unfortunately, that is not enough when it comes to the dismissal being fair. Context when considering the misconduct itself is key to establishing whether it would be reasonable to dismiss, rather than issue a warning or lesser sanction.”
She explained that, in this case, the tribunal found arguments for and against dismissal. “Ulitmately, the employee had been asleep for a short period of time. He was understandably tired after he had undertaken multiple consecutive night shifts, and he fell asleep at around 5am when the shopping centre he was providing security for was closed and securely locked, minimising risk to the public and employer,” she said.
Patel added that his long length of employment service and no previous disciplinary record also pointed towards retention rather than dismissal. “Had the context been that he had intentionally snuck off to sleep in defiance of his duties, that he was asleep when the shopping centre was open, and/or there was an incident that caused damage to the employer’s relationship with the shopping centre because he was asleep, dismissal may have been more likely a fair response,” she explained.
