It looks as though the company followed the correct legal procedure in that he had received written warnings and still broke a company rule. His contract would probably state that he is required to abide by company SOPs and regulations and he probably signed a copy as acceptance. I can't see the judge being interested in Mason's own opinions, they are irrelevant, the company didn't give him licence to interpret the SOPs/rules. He was sacked for persistently breaking company rules despite having been warned, security is hardly an issue.
Last edited by parabellum; 12th Mar 2009 at 04:43.