The Unfair Dismissal of a Door Supervisor and the Collapse of Procedural Fairness
Overview
The dismissal of Ms Yovka Kisheva, a door supervisor employed by Secure Frontline Services Ltd (SFS), is now formally recorded in the law reports as Kisheva v Secure Frontline Services Ltd [2025] EAT 194. It is a case that exposes how a routine shift‑management misunderstanding can metastasise into a finding of gross misconduct when an employer abandons the basic architecture of fairness.
Both the Employment Tribunal (ET) and the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) condemned the employer’s approach as procedurally barren, factually untested, and legally indefensible. The EAT’s judgment is particularly stark: the employer operated with an “absence of any proper procedure”, a phrase that should ring in the ears of every HR manager and security‑sector operator.
Factual Background
On the day in question, Kisheva left her shift early, having informed the on‑site manager. SFS Security later alleged that she had failed to notify head office, treating this as a gross misconduct breach.
Rather than establishing what actually happened, the employer constructed a disciplinary case around assumption and suspicion. The investigation included an extraordinary and irrelevant step: polling her son’s email account to check for communications. This was not only disproportionate but also detached from the alleged misconduct.
Kisheva appealed internally. The appeal was dismissed. She brought a claim for unfair dismissal.
Tribunal Findings
Employment Tribunal
The ET found the dismissal unfair on three principal grounds:
• No reasonable investigation — The employer never clarified whether the on‑site manager had authority to approve her departure, nor what the reporting procedure required in practice.
• Procedural irregularities — The process was muddled, inconsistent, and unsupported by evidence. The email‑polling episode was singled out as particularly inappropriate.
• Disproportionate sanction — Even if there had been a communication lapse, gross misconduct was an excessive and unreasonable response.
Employment Appeal Tribunal — Kisheva v Secure Frontline Services Ltd [2025] EAT 194
The EAT upheld the ET’s decision. Judge Barklem emphasised:
• the absence of any proper procedure,
• the employer’s failure to establish a reasonable belief based on a reasonable investigation,
• and the lack of any rational basis for treating the incident as gross misconduct.
The EAT’s judgment now stands as a clear authority on the limits of managerial discretion in the security sector.
Why This Case Matters
This case is a reminder that gross misconduct is not a managerial shortcut. It requires:
• a clear rule,
• a clear breach,
• a proportionate response,
• and a procedurally sound investigation.
SFS Security failed on all four.
The case also exposes a broader cultural problem: when employers treat administrative expectations as if they were disciplinary tripwires, workers become vulnerable to arbitrary sanction. The law insists that employers ask questions before drawing conclusions, and that they test their assumptions rather than act on them.
For unions, advocates, and workers, the lesson is simple: procedure is protection.
Commentary
What makes Kisheva so instructive is its ordinariness. A worker left early with permission. The employer assumed wrongdoing, built a case around that assumption, and imposed the harshest sanction available. The Tribunal’s response was proportionate: you cannot dismiss first and investigate later.
The EAT’s criticism of the employer’s “absence of any proper procedure” is a warning to the industry. Security work often involves fragmented communication, lone working, and multiple reporting lines. Employers must adapt their procedures to that reality rather than punish workers for navigating it.
This case should be used in training for managers, union reps, and HR practitioners as a model of how not to conduct a disciplinary process.
By Patrick Harrington
