Security guard sacked after bringing his son into work when his childcare fell through wins £8,000 payout

An 'experienced security guard' who brought his son into work after his childcare fell through has won £8,000 after being unfairly sacked for having 'family issues'.Bakary Jawneh was taken off shift at a Russell Group university because the client believed he caused a 'security breach' by bringing his son into work.The single father then took unpaid leave, because none of the shifts he was offered as an alternative worked for him around the school run.G4S Secure Solutions, where Mr Jawneh had worked for more than nine years, sacked him months later without contacting him.When he got back in touch about a shift which would work with his childcare commitments, he was told he would be treated as a 'new starter' - despite having experience at the company.He successfully sued for unfair dismissal and was awarded £8,320 in compensation, including £5,834 for unfair dismissal.The tribunal, held in Southampton, Hampshire, heard Mr Jawneh had been employed to provide security services to the University of Southampton since 2022.He was aware that G4S had a 24-hour line which security guards can call if they cannot do their shift, so that cover could be arranged. G4S Secure Solutions was found to have unfairly sacked security guard Bakary Jawneh months after he was accused of causing a 'securiy breach' by bringing his son to workIt was told: 'On March 8, 2024, [Mr Jawneh] returned from holiday with his son.'He was due to return to work early in the morning at around 7am. He was let down at the last minute by the provider of his childcare. He endeavoured to resolve the situation by taking his son to work with him.'His son stayed for the whole shift. He did not notify his employer or the client that he was doing so.'A member of staff wrote to G4S to complain about the 'security breach' and asked that Mr Jawneh be removed from the site.He was offered other shifts with the company, but their locations were not convenient for him to take and collect his child from school. Mr Jawneh responded to the offer: 'Please I want to take off from work to resolve the situation with my Son who [I] am the sole carer [for].'I will give you enough notice, when these [sic] is resolve and I can come back to work.'Also please can you find me sites around Portsmouth as I need to combined [sic] work and looking after my son.'He was allowed to go on unpaid leave, but after not hearing from him for months, the operations contract manager recorded Mr Jawneh had resigned in November 2024 because of 'family issues'.The manager, referred to only as Mr Benfield by the tribunal, told the tribunal he did this because payroll were 'putting pressure on him' to resolve the issue that Mr Jawneh was recorded as being employed to work 42 hours a week without pay.The tribunal found Mr Benfield had assumed Mr Jawneh had abandoned his job.However, Mr Jawneh got back in touch with Mr Benfield in February 2025 after seeing a vacancy with G4S in a location which would have suited his childcare responsibilities.Mr Benfield told Mr Jawneh he would have to be re-screened as a 'new starter', but he did not want to do this given that he had built up nine years of service with the company.The manager replied: 'Sorry Bakary[.] You did not get back to me and I had no contact from you since the removal from Astro house so I am [afraid] I had [no] choice than to make you a leaver.'The tribunal found it 'surprising' Mr Jawneh did not contact G4S between April 2024 and February 2025.However, Employment Judge James Dawson said: 'The person in the street might well think that if an employee failed to contact their employer for months on end, they would only have themselves to blame if the employer took the view they were no longer working for them.'We do find that [Mr Jawneh] was morally culpable in failing to contact his employer.'However, when we look at the respective causes of the dismissal, we do not think that [Mr Jawneh] was equally to blame for his dismissal with [G4S].'It found he partially contributed to his own dismissal, which lowered the amount of compensation he was in line for.The judge added: 'At the very least, Mr Benfield should have contacted [Mr Jawneh] to find out what his position was and his intentions were.'Other claims Mr Jawneh made were dismissed.