Security guard sacked after bringing his son into work when his childcare fell through wins £8,000 payout
A security guard has won an £8,320 employment tribunal award after G4S Secure Solutions was found to have unfairly dismissed him following childcare difficulties. Bakary Jawneh, a single father with more than nine years’ service, brought his son to a University of Southampton shift after childcare fell through, prompting the client to allege a security breach and request his removal. The case matters because the tribunal ruled that G4S ended his employment without properly establishing that he had resigned.
Mr Jawneh was placed on unpaid leave after alternative shifts did not fit around school runs, and he asked for work nearer Portsmouth once his situation was resolved. G4S recorded him as having left in November 2024 after months without contact, but he approached the firm again in February 2025 about a suitable vacancy and was told he would be treated as a new starter. The tribunal said his failure to contact the company was blameworthy, but awarded £5,834 for unfair dismissal within the total compensation.
- Tribunal finds G4S unfairly dismissed a security guard over childcare-related absence.
- Guard received £8,320 compensation after being recorded as having resigned.
- His son attended one shift after last-minute childcare failed.
New here? Start with this
G4S Secure Solutions provides security staff to clients, including the University of Southampton. Bakary Jawneh was a single father who had worked for the company for more than nine years; when childcare fell through, he took his son with him to a shift, and the university asked for him to be removed.
Afterwards, G4S placed Jawneh on unpaid leave and offered shifts that did not fit around school runs. He later asked about work nearer Portsmouth, but the company recorded him as having left. The tribunal found that his lack of contact was blameworthy, while ruling that G4S had not properly established that he had resigned.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
A single parent dealing with a genuine childcare emergency should receive workplace support rather than dismissal, particularly after nine years of loyal service. The company's response was inflexible—placing him on unpaid leave without addressing his practical needs, then abandoning him for months—causing unnecessary hardship. The tribunal's finding of unfair dismissal reflects that reasonable accommodation for real family emergencies, balanced against security concerns, should guide how employers treat long-serving staff.
The case against
Security protocols at sensitive locations exist for legitimate reasons and cannot be compromised by individual circumstances, however sympathetic. Bringing an unauthorised child onto a secured university campus breached established access controls that protect everyone on site. The employer had professional obligations to its client and to maintaining security standards; allowing exceptions to such protocols would undermine their purpose and create problematic precedents for future requests.