Case 1404635/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Bojang v Mitie Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404635/2021
- Decision date
- 20 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Bojang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed as a Retail Security Officer and his role was identified for redundancy after a review of guarding hours and headcount. The dispute concerned whether he had resigned or been dismissed, and whether the alternative roles offered by the respondent, particularly at Waterlooville, were suitable alternative employment.
The tribunal preferred the evidence of Mr Brown where there were conflicts. It found that the claimant had indicated willingness to consider Waterlooville and Broadcut, and that the Waterlooville role was offered on fixed hours for the foreseeable future, five days a week from 11am to 8pm, with the same pay and work and with public transport available.
The tribunal found that the Waterlooville role was suitable alternative employment. Applying the approach in Everest, it also found the claimant's refusal unreasonable from his perspective, concluding that the travel, family, and manager-related reasons advanced were either not genuinely held or were not the real reason, and that the claimant had preferred a role with another employer. The claim for a redundancy payment was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The claim was for failure to pay a redundancy payment. The tribunal dismissed it after finding that suitable alternative employment had been offered and that the claimant's refusal was unreasonable. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.135 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.141 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Executors of JF Everest v Cox [1980] ICR 415
- Lincoln and Louth NHS Trust v Cowan EAT 895/99
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.