Sleeping Security Officer Who Claimed He Was “Meditating and Thinking” Was Unfairly Dismissed, Says Tribunal

Published : July 2, 2025

In Mr C Okoro v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Ltd, a CCTV controller won his unfair dismissal claim after being dismissed from work for sleeping. The sleeping security officer insisted he was meditating and thinking, and although the employment tribunal didn’t believe him, it found the dismissal to be unjustified.

Below, we examine the case facts and the tribunal’s judgment. If you have any questions about this case or believe your rights have been breached, contact Redmans Solicitors today. As employment law experts, we can analyse your circumstances, answer your queries, and provide specialist advice.

To learn how we could help you, please:

The Facts in Mr C Okoro v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Ltd

A Long Career Undone: The Sleeping Security Officer Incident

Mr C Okoro (“the Claimant”) began working as a CCTV controller for Bidvest Noonan (UK) Ltd (“the Respondent”) on 26 November 2006. Up until his dismissal, he had 16 years of continuous service and an unblemished disciplinary record.

On 1 September 2022, a spot check was conducted on the Claimant when he was working in the CCTV control room at Xscape Shopping Centre, one of the Respondent’s clients. Here, he was caught sleeping, and the incident was reported to Mr Muhammad Choudry, the key account manager.

Mr Choudry reviewed footage and confirmed that the Claimant had been asleep from 5:03 am until 5:18 am. Consequently, the sleeping security officer was invited to an investigation meeting, scheduled to take place on 9 September.

The meeting proceeded as scheduled, during which the Claimant was allowed to review CCTV footage of the incident. However, rather than accepting that he’d fallen asleep, he asserted he’d been given medical advice to shut his eyes and turn away from the screens to prevent eye dryness. He added that he “wasn’t dozing,” rather, he wanted to “meditate and think.”

Before making a decision, Mr Choudry took advice from HR and referred the Claimant to Occupational Health (OH) due to his potential eye issues. Yet, despite engaging with the OH assessment, the sleeping security officer refused to share the findings with the Respondent. 

Unable to investigate further, Mr Choudry decided on 9 December that a formal disciplinary hearing was the appropriate next step. He reached this decision after concluding that the Claimant had fallen asleep, a matter he considered gross misconduct, potentially warranting dismissal.

From Spot Check to Dismissal: How the Respondent Handled the Allegation

A disciplinary hearing was then scheduled for 23 December, during which the Claimant continued to protest his innocence. Nevertheless, the Respondent determined that the allegation was substantiated and that immediate dismissal was the proper course of action. The sleeping security officer opted not to appeal this decision but, instead, pursued employment tribunal proceedings on 13 February 2023. At such time, he claimed wrongful and unfair dismissal.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal deliberated on the claims of wrongful and unfair dismissal. This was split into two considerations: whether the procedure to dismiss was fair, and whether the dismissal itself was justified.

Was the Procedure to Dismiss the Sleeping Security Officer Fair?

Regarding the procedure, the tribunal noted that Mr Choudry conducted a “timely and thorough” investigation, supported by CCTV footage. It also found that he acted fairly throughout, giving the sleeping security officer multiple opportunities to explain himself, including a referral to OH after he raised concerns about his eyes. Since no issues were found at this stage, the tribunal, therefore, concluded that the dismissal procedure was fair.

Was Dismissal the Right Outcome?

The tribunal then turned to whether the dismissal itself was justified. It stressed that the key question wasn’t whether it would have made the same decision, but whether the employer’s action fell within the range of reasonable responses.

Interestingly, factors in favour of and against dismissal were examined. In favour of dismissal, the tribunal noted the critical nature of the Claimant’s role as sole CCTV controller. It also outlined the potential reputational and financial risk to the Respondent’s contract, the brief lapse in site security, and the Claimant’s refusal to admit he had fallen asleep, which the tribunal found to be dishonest.

As for against, the tribunal primarily considered the Claimant’s long, unblemished record. It also paid particular attention to the short and inadvertent nature of the incident, which occurred following extended shifts, and the absence of actual harm or danger. It then pointed out that falling asleep wasn’t clearly defined as gross misconduct under the Respondent’s disciplinary policy, nor the ACAS Code.

With both sides of the argument explored, the tribunal concluded that the sleeping security officer had been unfairly dismissed from work. While it accepted that deliberately sneaking off to take a nap could amount to gross misconduct, that simply wasn’t the case here. The Claimant had unintentionally and momentarily nodded off, with few, if any, consequences to answer for.

As such, although the matter was serious, the tribunal held that dismissal wasn’t a reasonable response. Given the Claimant’s otherwise unblemished 16-year record, it found that a final written warning would have been appropriate. Both his wrongful and unfair dismissal claims were therefore upheld.

What Compensation Was Awarded?

In determining compensation, the tribunal acknowledged the Claimant’s contributory fault, namely, that he fell asleep during his shift. Accordingly, while he was awarded £20,521.35 (comprising £5,138.28 for breach of contract, a basic award of £5,210.64, and £10,172.43 in compensation for financial losses), he was ordered to repay £4,030 to the Respondent.

Questions About the Sleeping Security Officer Case? Contact Redmans

If you have any questions after reading about the case involving the sleeping security officer, contact Redmans Solicitors. It may be that you’re unsure whether your rights have been breached or want help with your unfair dismissal claim. Whatever the scenario, we are here to help.

By contacting us, our team of employment specialists can answer your queries and provide expert advice on your possible options. Learn more about the help we provide today by simply:

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