Bus driver's constructive dismissal claim fails after employer addressed grievance
A bus driver who resigned after a grievance about a manager's comments and a sick pay error lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably throughout.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a bus driver from 27 November 2017 until she resigned on 16 December 2020.
- On 1 October 2019, Mr Henley-Burns held an informal meeting with the claimant to discuss three customer complaints.
- During the meeting, Mr Henley-Burns said 'I'm sorry for your husband' and 'I'm not surprised' when the claimant said she was not married.
- The claimant raised a grievance on 3 October 2019, which was upheld in part; Mr Henley-Burns apologised and received training.
- After furlough, the respondent could not continue the arrangement that the claimant work only on days when Mr Henley-Burns was absent.
- The claimant's statutory sick pay was stopped for three weeks due to an administrative error, but was later reinstated and back-paid.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working as a bus driver for the respondent at Banbury Depot.
-
Mr Henley-Burns becomes acting assistant operations manager
Mr Henley-Burns was appointed acting assistant operations manager at Witney and Banbury depots, spending three days a week at Banbury.
-
Meeting with Mr Henley-Burns
Mr Henley-Burns held an informal meeting with the claimant to discuss three customer complaints. The meeting became heated, and he made comments about her marital status.
-
Claimant raised first grievance
The claimant submitted a formal grievance about the meeting on 1 October 2019.
-
First grievance outcome
Mr Bayliss upheld the grievance in part, stating the comment about being unmarried was unacceptable. Mr Henley-Burns was to receive training and would not meet the claimant without a third party present.
-
Return to work meeting
The claimant agreed to return to work four days a week on days when Mr Henley-Burns was not at the depot.
-
Return to work
The claimant returned to work under the agreed arrangement.
-
Furlough due to Covid-19
The claimant was placed on furlough until 31 July 2020.
-
Second grievance raised
The claimant raised a second grievance after being told the previous working arrangement could not continue because Mr Henley-Burns would now be based at Banbury five days a week.
-
Second grievance outcome
Mr Hough decided the claimant should return to her normal roster but with a four-week transition period working two days a week on days when Mr Henley-Burns was absent.
-
Appeal outcome
Mr Gibbon upheld the second grievance decision, allowing an eight-week transition period before returning to the normal roster.
-
Expected return to work
The claimant was expected to return to work but remained off sick.
-
Sick pay issue raised
The claimant notified Mr Bayliss that her statutory sick pay had been stopped.
-
Sick pay reinstated
The back payment of statutory sick pay for the three-week period was paid.
-
Claimant resigned
The claimant resigned, citing the failure to adhere to the roster agreement and the sick pay issue as the last straw.
-
Last day of employment
The claimant's employment ended.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented her claim to the Employment Tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's actions—including a manager's inappropriate comment, changes to a return-to-work arrangement, and a sick pay error—amounted to a fundamental breach of contract justifying resignation, and whether there was direct sex discrimination or harassment.
The outcome
The tribunal unanimously dismissed all claims of direct sex discrimination, harassment related to sex, and constructive unfair dismissal.
The key reasons were:
- The manager's comment about the claimant's marital status, while inappropriate, was a one-off remark that the employer promptly addressed through an apology and training.
- The change to the return-to-work arrangement after furlough was a reasonable operational decision, not a breach of contract.
- The sick pay error was an administrative mistake that was corrected as soon as it was raised, and did not show an intention to repudiate the contract.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you experience a problem at work, raising a formal grievance can prompt your employer to take corrective action, which may protect them from liability.
- A single inappropriate comment, if promptly addressed by the employer, is unlikely to amount to unlawful discrimination or harassment.
- Employers can change working arrangements after furlough if there is a genuine business reason, provided they act reasonably and consult with the employee.
- Administrative errors, such as a mistaken stoppage of sick pay, are not automatically a breach of contract if corrected promptly and without malice.
- To succeed in a constructive dismissal claim, you must show that your employer committed a fundamental breach of contract that went to the root of the employment relationship.
A case about trust and confidence
This case shows how the 'last straw' doctrine works in practice. The claimant, a bus driver with three years' service, resigned after a series of events: a manager's insensitive comment about her marital status, a change to her return-to-work arrangement after furlough, and an error in her sick pay. She argued that these actions, taken together, destroyed the mutual trust and confidence needed to continue working.
However, the tribunal found that the employer had acted reasonably at each stage. The manager's comment was dealt with through a grievance process that resulted in an apology and training. The return-to-work arrangement was changed for genuine operational reasons, with a transition period offered. The sick pay error was a genuine mistake that was corrected as soon as it was brought to the employer's attention.
What the employer did right
Thames Transit Ltd t/a Stagecoach West avoided liability by taking prompt, proportionate action. When the claimant raised a grievance about the manager's comment, the employer upheld it in part, ensured the manager apologised and received training, and put measures in place to prevent a recurrence. When the claimant raised concerns about the return-to-work arrangement, the employer offered a transition period and communicated the reasons for the change. And when the sick pay error was discovered, it was corrected and back-paid without delay.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that constructive dismissal claims require a fundamental breach of contract. Minor errors or one-off comments, if properly addressed, are unlikely to meet that threshold. Employees considering resigning should be aware that they must give their employer a chance to put things right before claiming constructive dismissal. Employers, meanwhile, can take confidence that a fair and responsive grievance process can be a strong defence against such claims.
Similar cases
Cleaner complaint and grievance process: constructive dismissal claim fails
A customer service representative who resigned claiming constructive dismissal after a cleaner's complaint and a failed grievance has lost her case. The tribunal found no fundamental breach of trust and confidence.
Business manager's constructive dismissal claim fails over PIP process
A business manager with 8 years' service resigned after being invited to a second disciplinary hearing for underperformance. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence and dismissed his constructive unfair dismissal claim.
Drone pilot who resigned after £51 overtime deduction loses constructive dismissal claim
A drone pilot who resigned after his employer deducted £51.58 for unauthorised overtime has lost his constructive dismissal claim. The tribunal found the deduction was lawful as recovery of an overpayment.
Bus driver dismissed for speeding and running a red light: dismissal upheld as fair
A bus driver with 4 years' service was fairly dismissed after CCTV showed him speeding and running a red light, leading to a customer complaint. The tribunal rejected his unfair dismissal claim.