Cleaner with 19 years' service resigns over proposed hours change: constructive dismissal claim fails
A cleaner who resigned after her employer proposed changing her early-morning shift due to financial difficulties has lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #change-in-hours
- #security-concerns
- #lone-worker
- #financial-difficulties
- #holiday-pay
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a cleaner from 1 October 2002 until she resigned on 28 April 2022.
- Her usual working hours were 3am to 6am Monday to Friday, agreed temporarily in 2010 but continued for 12 years.
- The respondent faced financial difficulties and reduced security costs, removing overnight security guards on weekdays.
- The respondent offered the claimant options: become a key holder, change hours, or work 6am-8am with pay for 3 hours.
- The claimant resigned citing being forced to change hours or work alone without security.
- The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract and dismissed the claims.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a cleaner/domestic for the respondent.
-
Temporary hours change
After maternity leave, claimant agreed to work 3am to 6am Monday to Friday on a temporary basis, which continued for 12 years.
-
Redundancy warning
Claimant was told by her line manager that the respondent was considering redundancies due to financial difficulties.
-
Meeting about security changes
Mrs Parry met with claimant to inform her of reduced security and proposed options: become key holder or change hours.
-
Claimant requested risk assessment
Claimant emailed Mrs Parry expressing security concerns and requesting a risk assessment.
-
Third option offered
CEO Colin Parry offered a third option: work 6am to 8am with pay for 3 hours, until security could be reinstated.
-
Claimant declined options
Claimant emailed to say she could not agree to the proposed change of hours.
-
Final proposal
Mrs Parry offered claimant a key, lone worker policy, and hourly check-in calls if she kept her 3am-6am hours.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned with immediate effect, citing being forced to change hours or work without security.
-
Holiday pay paid
Respondent paid claimant £71.25 for 2.5 days accrued holiday pay.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's actions in proposing changes to the claimant's working hours and security arrangements amounted to a fundamental breach of contract, entitling her to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of constructive unfair dismissal. It held that the employer had reasonable and proper cause for its actions, which were driven by genuine financial difficulties. The proposals were not a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and the claimant had not been forced to resign.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim for unpaid holiday pay, finding that the employer had paid the correct amount of £71.25 for accrued leave.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can propose changes to working hours or conditions if they have a genuine business reason, such as financial difficulties, without necessarily breaching the contract.
- Employees who resign in response to proposed changes should consider whether the employer has acted reasonably and given them a genuine choice, as a resignation may not be a constructive dismissal.
- Long service does not automatically protect an employee from reasonable management proposals, especially when the employer engages in consultation and offers alternatives.
- Employees should not delay in resigning if they believe there has been a fundamental breach, as delay may be seen as affirming the contract.
A long-serving cleaner's resignation over shift changes
This case shows how an employer's financial difficulties can lead to proposed changes in working conditions, and when those proposals do not amount to a fundamental breach of contract. The claimant, a cleaner with 19 years' service, had worked a 3am to 6am shift since 2010 on a temporary basis. When the respondent faced financial pressures and removed overnight security guards, it offered the claimant several options: become a key holder, change her hours, or work a later shift with pay for three hours. The claimant resigned, saying she was forced to change hours or work alone without security.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for its actions. The financial difficulties were genuine, and the employer had engaged with the claimant, offering alternatives and even a final proposal of a key, lone worker policy, and check-in calls. The tribunal concluded that the respondent had not breached the implied term of trust and confidence, and the claimant's resignation was not a constructive dismissal. The claim for unpaid holiday pay also failed because the employer had paid the correct amount.
What the employer did right
The employer could have handled the situation differently, but the tribunal noted that it had acted reasonably. It communicated openly about the financial pressures, offered multiple options, and attempted to address the claimant's security concerns. This contrasts with cases where employers impose changes unilaterally without consultation. The key lesson is that employers facing financial difficulties should engage with employees, consider alternatives, and document their reasoning. This approach can help defend against constructive dismissal claims.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees considering a constructive dismissal claim, this case highlights the importance of showing that the employer's conduct was a fundamental breach of contract. A proposal to change hours, even one that is unwelcome, is not necessarily a breach if the employer has a good reason and offers choices. Employees should also be aware that resigning too quickly, without giving the employer a chance to resolve concerns, may weaken their case. The outcome here shows that tribunals will scrutinise whether the employer acted reasonably in all the circumstances.
Similar cases
General Manager's constructive dismissal claim fails but holiday pay awarded
A General Manager with 13 years' service resigned claiming constructive dismissal after a dispute over a promised reward for a business sale. The tribunal rejected his claim but awarded £326.41 in unpaid holiday pay.
Constructive dismissal claim fails but holiday pay awarded for cash-in-hand worker
A counter assistant who resigned after receiving a written warning for sickness absence lost her unfair dismissal claim, but was awarded £4,777.50 for unpaid holiday pay over nine years.
Constructive dismissal over unpaid wages and holiday pay: employer fails to attend hearing
A former employee won a constructive unfair dismissal claim after her employer made unauthorised deductions from wages and failed to pay holiday entitlement. The tribunal awarded over £10,000, including a basic award and penalties for missing written particulars.
Live-in carer wins whistleblowing detriment claim but loses constructive dismissal case
A live-in carer with 32 years' experience won a whistleblowing detriment claim after raising safety concerns, but her constructive dismissal claim failed. She was awarded £1,775.