44 years' service but constructive dismissal claim fails: retirement timing was key
A senior sales ledger clerk who resigned after 44 years, then claimed constructive dismissal due to workload, lost her case. The tribunal found she had already decided to retire and the workload did not drive her resignation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #long-service
- #excessive-workload
- #constructive-dismissal
- #redundancy
- #retirement-timing
Key facts
- Claimant worked for respondent for over 44 years as Senior Sales Ledger Clerk.
- Claimant resigned on 7 June 2022 with effect from 21 July 2022, having planned to retire around that time.
- Respondent decided to relocate finance functions to Bath and make redundancies after claimant's departure.
- Claimant's workload increased significantly from January 2022 due to an acquisition, but she did not link her resignation to workload until after leaving.
- The tribunal found that the decision to resign was not materially affected by workload stress.
- The redundancy and relocation plans were not finalised until after claimant's resignation.
Timeline
-
Claimant expresses dissatisfaction
Claimant wrote in a chat that she was 'counting the days till I retire'.
-
Claimant mentions retirement
Claimant wrote about a pay rise, saying she would only see a few months of it.
-
Claimant confirms retirement plan
Claimant told a colleague she planned to retire in July or early August.
-
Workload increases
Claimant's workload became much greater due to acquisition of Dennis.
-
Claimant has outburst
Claimant expressed frustration about workload and was seen crying.
-
Claimant gives notice
Claimant formally notified respondent of her retirement on 21 July 2022.
-
Redundancy planning begins
Respondent first collated names and figures for potential redundancies.
-
Claimant leaves
Claimant's last day of employment.
-
Redundancy approved
Formal approval given to proceed with relocation and redundancies.
-
Claimant links resignation to workload
Claimant emailed respondent stating her decision to retire was due to heavy workload.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed because of an unmanageable workload, whether she was directly discriminated against because of age, and whether she was entitled to a redundancy payment.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant had already decided to retire before the workload increased, and that the employer's conduct did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract. The redundancy and relocation plans were not finalised until after her resignation, so there was no discrimination or entitlement to a redundancy payment.
- No compensation awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you resign after already planning to retire, it is very difficult to later argue that you were forced out by your employer's conduct.
- Constructive dismissal requires a clear breach of contract that causes your resignation – general dissatisfaction or increased workload may not be enough.
- Employers can plan redundancies after an employee has resigned without that being discriminatory, provided the timing is not linked to the employee's age.
- Long service does not automatically make a workload complaint into a constructive dismissal claim if you have already decided to leave.
A long career ends in dispute
After 44 years as a Senior Sales Ledger Clerk, the claimant had been looking forward to retirement. She had told colleagues she was 'counting the days' and confirmed a July or August retirement date in January 2022. That same month, her workload increased significantly after her employer acquired another company. She became stressed and was seen crying, but she did not link her resignation to the workload until after she had left.
Why the claim failed
The tribunal accepted that the claimant's workload had become heavier, but it did not accept that this caused her resignation. The evidence showed she had already decided to retire before the workload increased. Her resignation letter and subsequent emails did not mention workload until weeks after she left. The tribunal found that the employer's conduct did not amount to a breach of contract that would justify a constructive dismissal claim.
The redundancy and discrimination angles
The claimant also argued that the employer had deliberately delayed a redundancy exercise until after she left, to avoid paying her a contractual redundancy payment. However, the tribunal found that the redundancy plans were not finalised until after her resignation. There was no evidence that the timing was linked to her age. The claim of age discrimination therefore failed, as did the claim for a redundancy payment.
What this means for similar cases
This case shows that a constructive dismissal claim based on workload will be difficult to win if you have already expressed a firm intention to retire. The tribunal will look at the timing of your resignation and whether you acted promptly in response to any alleged breach. It also highlights that employers are free to plan redundancies after an employee has resigned, as long as the decision is not motivated by a protected characteristic like age.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed after employer ignored redundancy request for 39 days
A former People Advisor who resigned after her employer failed to respond to her redundancy request for 39 days has been allowed to pursue claims for a redundancy payment and constructive unfair dismissal.
Café manager with 17 years' service unfairly dismissed after redundancy and missed vacancy
A café manager with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer failed to inform her of a sales assistant vacancy during redundancy consultation. The tribunal awarded £560.28 after applying a 66.7% Polkey reduction.
22-year employee unfairly dismissed after Boots failed to consider redeployment
A customer adviser with 22 years' service was unfairly dismissed by Boots after a redundancy exercise that failed to properly explore alternative roles. The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal claim but dismissed race-related complaints.
Finance Director with 24 years' service wins constructive dismissal and discrimination claim
A tribunal found that a finance director with 24 years' service was constructively dismissed and subjected to sex and race discrimination after being passed over for managing director and told her chairman had lost confidence in her. She was awarded £112,007.