Tribunal Awards £44K After Heathrow Security Officer’s Dismissal Over Racist Video Deemed Unfair

Published : September 3, 2025

In Mr Jose Gomes v LHR Airports Ltd, a Heathrow security officer’s dismissal from work resulted in a £44,000 award, despite being found guilty of sharing a “racist, highly offensive” video. So why did the employment tribunal rule he’d been unfairly sacked for gross misconduct when his wrongdoing seemed so clear?

In our latest article, we outline the facts and get down to the crux of the tribunal’s reasoning. We then examine the steps others affected by unfair dismissal can take and the benefits of obtaining legal advice.

If you’ve faced immediate dismissal without notice and believe it was unlawful, contact Redmans Solicitors without delay. Our team of employment specialists are here to help, and following a brief consultation, we can provide expert assistance.

It only takes a moment to discover how we could help you, simply:

The Facts in Mr Jose Gomes v LHR Airports Ltd

Background to Heathrow Security Officer’s Dismissal

Mr Jose Gomes (“the Claimant”) worked as a security officer for LHR Airports Ltd (“the Respondent”). At the time of his dismissal, he had gained 21 years of service. He was a “long-standing” representative for the trade union, Unite, and became the Terminal 3 union chair in March 2022.

However, shortly after the Claimant’s appointment, issues arose between him and the former chair, Mr Manoj Dadral. Central to this case was Mr Dadral’s complaint on 25 July, when he asserted that the Claimant had made racist remarks and shared a video denigrating India, behaviour he described as offensive and inappropriate. On one occasion, for example, the Claimant was alleged to have said, “If you shake an Indian man’s hand, then make sure you count your fingers after.”

On 13 September, following a period of annual leave, the Heathrow security officer attended a fact-finding meeting regarding his alleged use of offensive language and the video shown to Mr Dadral. He insisted that nothing was ever directed “at anybody” and described the video as “fact” and “educational.” The tribunal, however, rejected this characterisation, observing that the content could reasonably be seen as highly offensive to people of Indian nationality.

Claimant Dismissed from Work Following Disciplinary Hearing

An investigation soon followed, culminating in a report issued on 24 October. This led to a disciplinary hearing on 8 and 15 November, after which the Claimant was dismissed. The Heathrow security officer’s dismissal from work was then confirmed in a letter dated 23 November.

The letter acknowledged the Claimant’s “love of the job,” his two decades of service, and the toxic environment surrounding union members at work. Nevertheless, it concluded that he had breached the Respondent’s Dignity at Work and Disciplinary policies. Although alternative sanctions were considered, the “discriminatory nature” of his behaviour, deemed gross misconduct, and the risk of reoffending led to the decision that immediate dismissal without notice was the appropriate outcome.

The Heathrow security officer appealed the decision, but his challenge was unsuccessful. With no further internal remedies available, he proceeded to bring an unfair dismissal claim before the employment tribunal.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal acknowledged the “apparent care” taken in the Heathrow security officer’s dismissal. It noted that it mustn’t substitute its own views for those of the Respondent and would only intervene if the decision to dismiss fell outside the range of reasonable responses.

That being said, the tribunal concluded that dismissal did fall outside that range—a finding that may seem surprising considering the Claimant’s admission to sharing the “racist, highly offensive” video.

While the video sharing was admitted, allegations concerning racist remarks related to incidents from “years ago.” Alongside his previously unblemished 20-year disciplinary record, the tribunal found the Heathrow security officer had demonstrated he could “take management instruction and follow orders.” This was an essential factor, as part of the dismissal decision rested on the perceived risk of reoffending.

The tribunal also noted an ambiguity in the disciplinary policy, as harassment and discrimination were listed under both “misconduct” and “gross misconduct.” Combined with the fact that the Claimant apologised when prompted, it concluded that sacking him for gross misconduct was unlawful, upholding his unfair dismissal claim.

With a “considerable prospect for conflict in the attitude of both parties,” reinstatement, which the Claimant had requested, was deemed impracticable. Instead, the tribunal awarded the Claimant £44,000 in compensation. This comprised a basic and compensatory award, but was subject to a 12.5% deduction for contributory fault. Payment is currently being withheld, though, as the Respondent has appealed the decision.

Sacked for Gross Misconduct? Think It Was Unfair? Here’s Your Next Step

If an employee believes they’ve experienced something similar to the Heathrow security officer’s dismissal, prompt action is essential. While internal procedures should usually be pursued first, strict time limits apply for making a claim.

Following dismissal, it’s generally advisable to use internal grievance or appeal procedures. Doing so can provide a quicker resolution and may help avoid the stress and expense of formal litigation.

If, however, an internal remedy isn’t possible, consulting Acas is usually the next step. It’s free and independent early conciliation process is required before most employment tribunal claims and can potentially resolve matters without the need for formal proceedings.

Should these avenues fail, raising an employment tribunal claim is the final option. Time limits and eligibility criteria must be strictly adhered to, and if successful, the employee may be eligible to receive compensation.

In all cases, it’s strongly recommended to seek advice from an employment law specialist. This ensures all options are considered and increases the likelihood of achieving the best possible outcome.

Get Help with Redmans

If you’ve been dismissed from work and believe it was unlawful, we’re here to help. Redmans Solicitors are employment law specialists, and following a brief consultation, we can provide expert advice. We would assess your circumstances, answer your queries, and discuss your possible next steps.

To learn how we could help you, please:

The information on this page is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.