Blind installer with 7 years' service was dismissed, not resigned, tribunal rules
A blind installer who accepted an offer to leave with 7 weeks' pay was found to have been dismissed, not to have resigned. The tribunal rejected the employer's claim for damages over alleged poor work.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #blind-installer
- #tupe-transfer
- #speeding-incident
- #private-work-policy
- #without-prejudice-offer
- #enforced-resignation
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a blind installer from 19 May 2014 until February 2022.
- On 21 February 2022, the respondent offered the claimant three options, including leaving with 7 weeks' pay plus a bonus.
- On 22 February 2022, the claimant accepted the offer to leave with 7 weeks' pay, but the respondent later gave him a letter accepting his resignation.
- The claimant disputed that he resigned, claiming he was dismissed or forced to resign.
- The respondent's contract claim for damages from two jobs was dismissed.
- The claimant withdrew his claims for holiday pay and arrears of salary (bonus) at the hearing.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began employment with the respondent's predecessor business as a blind installer.
-
TUPE transfer
The claimant's employment transferred to the respondent following the insolvency of the predecessor company.
-
February 2021 incident
The claimant and a colleague were suspended after a customer complaint about van parking. The matter was resolved informally with no further action.
-
Informal meeting
The respondent held an informal meeting with the claimant to discuss concerns about recent installations and support for junior fitters.
-
Meeting with three options
The respondent offered the claimant three options: leave with 7 weeks' pay plus a bonus, resign with 4 weeks' notice, or try to resolve issues. The claimant said he would think about it.
-
Claimant accepts offer
The claimant told the respondent he accepted the offer to leave with 7 weeks' pay. The respondent later handed him a letter accepting his resignation.
-
Claimant disputes resignation
The claimant sent a without prejudice letter stating he had not resigned and was under the impression he was asked to leave.
-
Respondent's letter
The respondent sent a without prejudice letter denying he asked the claimant to leave and stating the claimant had resigned.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed by his employer or resigned voluntarily, and whether the employer could claim damages for alleged breaches of contract by the claimant.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the claimant was dismissed by the respondent. The meeting on 21 February 2022, where the respondent offered three options including leaving with 7 weeks' pay, was not a genuine resignation scenario but an ultimatum that led to dismissal.
- The claimant's claims for holiday pay and bonus were withdrawn as they had been paid.
- The respondent's contract claim for damages in respect of two jobs (Hayes and Hutchings) was dismissed.
- The claimant's breach of contract claim for notice was also dismissed.
- No compensation was awarded as the unfair dismissal claim was not yet determined.
Lessons & takeaways
- If an employer presents options that include leaving with a payment, it may be seen as a dismissal rather than a resignation, even if the employee 'accepts'.
- Without prejudice offers can be admissible if both parties waive privilege, so employers should be careful what they put in writing.
- A tribunal will look at the reality of the situation, not just the label used by the employer.
- Employers should follow a proper disciplinary or capability process before presenting ultimatums to long-serving employees.
This case shows how a seemingly amicable parting of ways can be reclassified as a dismissal by an employment tribunal. The blind installer had worked for the business for seven years, including a period before it was transferred to the respondent. After concerns about his performance and a previous incident, the respondent called him to a meeting and offered three options: leave with 7 weeks' pay plus a bonus, resign with 4 weeks' notice, or try to resolve issues. The claimant chose the first option, but the tribunal found that this was not a free choice — it was effectively a dismissal.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent could have followed a proper capability or disciplinary process. Instead, they presented an ultimatum that left the claimant with little real choice. The tribunal noted that the meeting was not a protected conversation under section 111A of the Employment Rights Act, and the without prejudice correspondence was waived by both sides, so the details were admissible. The employer's claim for damages over two allegedly botched jobs was also dismissed because the tribunal found no evidence of breach of contract or negligence.
Why this matters
For employees, this case reinforces that accepting a financial package to leave does not automatically mean you resigned — especially if the employer initiated the conversation and framed it as a take-it-or-leave-it offer. For employers, it highlights the risk of using informal meetings to push out staff without following proper procedures. The result: the claimant was found to have been dismissed, opening the door to a potential unfair dismissal claim, while the employer's counterclaim failed entirely.
Similar cases
Missed redundancy interview: long-serving project manager loses unfair dismissal claim
A project manager with 10 years' service was fairly dismissed for redundancy after failing to attend a competitive interview. The tribunal rejected claims that his role as an employee representative or his grievances were the real reason.
Business Development Manager dismissed after raising grievance: redundancy or retaliation?
A tribunal found that a Business Development Manager was unfairly dismissed because the real reason was his grievance, not redundancy. The case highlights the risks of dismissing a worker who has raised concerns.
Night concierge resigns after TUPE transfer: constructive dismissal claim fails
A night concierge who resigned after a TUPE transfer, claiming his overtime, sick pay and holiday entitlement were cut, has lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no such cuts were made.
Pharmacy technician's constructive dismissal claim fails after not sharing adjustment passport with new employer
A pharmacy dispensary technician with fibromyalgia and other conditions lost her constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims after the tribunal found she did not share her adjustment passport with her new employer following a TUPE transfer.