Administration assistant with 17 years' service loses constructive dismissal claim over role change
An administration assistant who resigned after her employer refused a request for Wednesdays off without a pay cut has lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an administration assistant from 2003 until her resignation in 2020.
- Her role and responsibilities changed in March 2016 without prior discussion or formal appraisal.
- She signed an addendum to her contract in April 2017 reflecting the changed role and increased salary.
- She went off sick in January 2020 after a dispute over a meeting with the head teacher.
- The respondent offered support, including mediation with an external HR consultant, and proposed a return-to-work meeting.
- The claimant resigned after the respondent refused her request for Wednesdays off without a pay cut.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as an administration assistant at Woodlands School Ltd.
-
Role change
After Jackie Lines left, claimant and colleague took over her duties without formal consultation.
-
Contract addendum signed
Claimant signed an addendum reflecting her changed role and increased salary from £12,709 to £17,499.
-
Email complaint
Claimant emailed about workload imbalance and feeling overwhelmed after a difficult Friday.
-
Sick leave
Claimant went off sick after a panic about a meeting with head teacher David Bell.
-
Mediation with HR consultant
Claimant engaged with Julie Page, an external HR consultant, to discuss her concerns.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned after respondent refused her request for Wednesdays off without a pay cut.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's conduct—including a role change in 2016 and refusal of a flexible working request in 2020—amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract that entitled the employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant had signed a contract addendum in 2017 reflecting the changed role, so she had accepted the change.
- The respondent had offered support, including mediation with an external HR consultant, when she went off sick.
- The refusal of her request for Wednesdays off without a pay cut was not a breach of contract, as the respondent had offered alternatives.
- The claimant had not shown that the respondent's conduct destroyed the relationship of trust and confidence.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you accept a change in your role and sign a new contract, it becomes harder to later claim that change was a breach of contract.
- Constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract—disagreements about workload or working patterns may not be enough if the employer offers support and alternatives.
- Resigning too quickly, without giving the employer a chance to address concerns, can undermine a constructive dismissal claim.
- Seeking legal advice before resigning can help you understand whether the employer's conduct amounts to a repudiatory breach.
A long-serving employee's claim that failed
This case shows how difficult it can be to win a constructive dismissal claim when the employee has accepted changes to their role over time. The administration assistant had worked at Woodlands School Ltd for 17 years. In 2016, her duties expanded after a colleague left, and she later signed an addendum to her contract reflecting the new role and a higher salary. By 2020, she was feeling overwhelmed and went off sick after a dispute about a meeting. The school offered mediation and a return-to-work plan, but when she asked for Wednesdays off without a pay cut and was refused, she resigned.
What the tribunal looked at
The tribunal had to decide whether the school's conduct was a fundamental breach of contract that justified her resignation. It found that the role change in 2016 had been accepted—she signed the addendum in 2017—so she could not later claim it was a breach. The refusal of her flexible working request was not a breach either, because the school had offered alternatives, such as a later start time. The tribunal also noted that the school had offered support when she was off sick, including mediation with an external HR consultant. This showed that the school was trying to maintain the employment relationship, not destroy it.
Why the result matters
For employees considering a constructive dismissal claim, this case is a reminder that timing matters. If you accept a change in your role and continue working without protest, you may be seen to have affirmed the contract. The law requires a clear, fundamental breach—not just a disagreement about working arrangements. Employers, on the other hand, should note that offering support and alternatives can help defend against such claims. The school's willingness to mediate and propose a return-to-work plan was key to its success.
Similar cases
18-year employee loses constructive dismissal claim over flexible working refusal
An engineer with 18 years' service resigned after his request for a four-day week was refused. The employment tribunal found his employer had reasonable cause and dismissed the claim.
Senior pharmacist's constructive dismissal claim fails: trust and confidence not breached
The tribunal rejected a constructive unfair dismissal claim by an Associate Chief Pharmacist, finding the Trust had not breached the implied term of trust and confidence.
Enablement assistant loses constructive dismissal claim after flexible working request refused
A tribunal has dismissed claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination brought by an enablement assistant with 13 years' service after her employer refused her request for reduced weekend-only hours.
Flexible working refusal: lecturer's constructive dismissal claim fails
A lecturer with 12 years' service resigned after her flexible working request was refused. The tribunal held that the employer's conduct did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract.