Manufacturing operative loses constructive dismissal claim over Covid safety concerns
An 18-year employee who walked out after being asked to work on a different line and later resigned has lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found his evidence dishonest and that the employer had acted reasonably.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #health-and-safety
- #covid-19
- #refusal-to-follow-instruction
- #swearing-at-manager
- #unexcused-absence
- #delay-in-grievance
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent since June 2003 on the door line manufacturing PVC doors.
- On 30 March 2021, the claimant was asked to work on the window line but refused and swore at managers.
- The claimant left the site without permission and his absence was classified as unexcused.
- The claimant resigned by email on 25 April 2021 citing constructive dismissal and non-payment of wages.
- The tribunal found the claimant's evidence dishonest and that he had been running a fencing business since 2014.
- The respondent had put in place Covid-19 safety measures and was praised by the Health and Safety Executive.
Timeline
-
Claimant started work
Claimant began working for Anglian Windows on the door line.
-
Flexible working request
Claimant requested to reduce hours to two days per week to run his fencing business.
-
Covid-19 lockdown
England entered lockdown; claimant was furloughed due to diabetes.
-
Return to work
Claimant returned to work as part of the third wave of employees.
-
Covid concern raised
Claimant raised concerns about a colleague who tested positive for Covid.
-
Incident and walkout
Claimant refused to work on window line, swore at managers, and left site without permission.
-
Unexcused absence confirmed
HR emailed claimant confirming absence was unexcused and requiring a statement.
-
Claimant sent statement
Claimant emailed his version of events and raised health concerns.
-
Resignation
Claimant emailed resignation citing constructive dismissal and non-payment of wages.
-
HR response
HR apologised for delay, explained sick pay, and offered to proceed with grievance hearing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was constructively dismissed or automatically unfairly dismissed for health and safety reasons after he refused to work in a different area and resigned.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims. It found that the claimant was not constructively dismissed because the employer's actions—asking him to work on a different line, classifying his absence as unexcused, and a delay in responding to his grievance—did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract. The tribunal also rejected the claim of automatic unfair dismissal for health and safety reasons, noting that the employer had implemented robust Covid-19 measures praised by the Health and Safety Executive. The claimant's evidence was found to be dishonest, including his denial of running a fencing business while furloughed.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract by the employer—disagreements over work assignments or delays in grievance responses may not be enough.
- Dishonesty in tribunal proceedings, such as denying side businesses, can severely damage credibility and harm your case.
- Employers who can demonstrate robust health and safety measures, especially during Covid-19, are likely to defeat claims based on safety concerns.
This case illustrates the high bar for constructive dismissal claims, even for long-serving employees. The claimant, a manufacturing operative with 18 years' service, walked out after being asked to work on a different production line and later resigned, citing a fundamental breach of trust and confidence. However, the tribunal found that the employer's actions—including a brief delay in responding to his grievance—did not cross that threshold.
What the employer did right
Anglian Windows had implemented extensive Covid-19 safety measures, including zoning, staggered shifts, and sanitisation stations. These were praised by the Health and Safety Executive. The tribunal noted that the claimant's refusal to work on the window line was not a reasonable safety concern but a refusal to follow a lawful instruction. The employer's classification of his absence as unexcused was also reasonable.
Why the claimant lost
A key factor was the tribunal's finding that the claimant was dishonest in his evidence. He initially denied running a fencing business while furloughed, but later admitted it. This undermined his credibility on other points, including his safety concerns. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had a history of flexible working arrangements to accommodate his side business, which suggested his real motivation was not safety but a desire to work only on his preferred tasks.
What this means for similar claims
Employees considering a constructive dismissal claim should be aware that a single incident or a short delay in grievance handling is unlikely to amount to a fundamental breach. Credibility is crucial—any dishonesty can sink a case. Employers, meanwhile, can take comfort that robust safety measures and reasonable management actions will be upheld by tribunals, even when an employee feels aggrieved.
Similar cases
Before and after school club leader loses Covid-19 safety dismissal claim
A before and after school club leader who refused to attend work during the pandemic claiming serious and imminent danger has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found her belief was not reasonable given the school's risk assessments.
Nurse who raised PPE concerns during pandemic wins whistleblowing detriment claim
A district nursing team leader who raised concerns about inadequate PPE and risk assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic has won her claim for detriment against Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board. The tribunal found she was isolated from her team and her role was changed after making protected disclosures.
Personal assistant who refused to attend work during lockdown wins constructive dismissal claim
A personal assistant with 11 years' service was constructively dismissed after raising health and safety concerns about attending work during the November 2020 lockdown. The tribunal awarded her over £115,000 in total.
Sales promoter who quit over volunteering scheme loses constructive dismissal claim
A sales promoter with six years' service resigned the day before a disciplinary hearing after refusing to take part in a volunteering scheme. The tribunal found no constructive dismissal and no unauthorised deduction from wages.