Bakery employee's constructive dismissal claim fails after misunderstanding suspension
A bakery employee with 7 years' service who believed he was suspended after a return-to-work meeting resigned two months later. The tribunal dismissed his constructive dismissal claim, finding no fundamental breach of contract.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #resignation
- #sick-leave
- #working-for-competitor
- #return-to-work-meeting
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 6 April 2015 as a bakery employee.
- On 31 March 2022 the claimant left work due to illness.
- While off sick, the claimant worked for another bakery.
- On 6 April 2022 a return-to-work meeting was held where the claimant was told disciplinary action could include suspension.
- The claimant left the meeting believing he was suspended but did not resign.
- The claimant did not resign until 20 June 2022 via a solicitor's letter.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with Dents Bakery Limited.
-
Claimant left work ill
Claimant left work due to upset stomach and diarrhoea.
-
Return-to-work meeting
Meeting held with claimant, Ms Carey, and Mr Stephenson. Claimant was told disciplinary action could include suspension. Claimant left believing he was suspended.
-
Text message exchange
Ms Carey texted claimant asking if he had resigned. Claimant replied 'Sepended that’s wot he sed.'
-
Resignation letter
Claimant's solicitors sent a letter to respondent confirming resignation.
-
Claim form presented
Claimant presented claims for unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
-
Final hearing
Hearing took place at Newcastle Employment Tribunal.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Atkinson dismissed both claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was constructively dismissed, meaning whether he resigned in response to a fundamental breach of contract by his employer, Dents Bakery Limited.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims.
The key reason was that the claimant's resignation was not in response to a fundamental breach of contract. The return-to-work meeting on 6 April 2022 did not amount to a breach; the claimant's belief that he was suspended was a misunderstanding. Even if there had been a breach, the claimant's resignation two months later was too remote in time to be a response to it.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A constructive dismissal claim requires a fundamental breach of contract by the employer – a misunderstanding about suspension is unlikely to qualify.
- If you believe you have been suspended, clarify the situation with your employer in writing before resigning.
- Delaying resignation for two months after the alleged breach can weaken a constructive dismissal claim, as the link between breach and resignation may be broken.
- Working for a competitor while off sick can undermine your credibility in an unfair dismissal claim.
A misunderstanding that led to resignation
This case shows how a simple misunderstanding can escalate into a legal dispute. The claimant, a bakery employee of seven years, left work ill on 31 March 2022. During a return-to-work meeting on 6 April, he was told that disciplinary action could include suspension. He left believing he had been suspended, but the employer's witnesses said no such decision was made. Text messages later showed the claimant wrote 'Sepended that’s wot he sed,' indicating his confusion.
Instead of seeking clarification, the claimant waited over two months before resigning via a solicitor's letter on 20 June 2022. During that time, he worked for another bakery while off sick – a fact that did not help his case. The tribunal found that the employer's conduct at the meeting did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract, which is essential for a constructive dismissal claim.
What the employer could have done differently
While the employer won, the case highlights the importance of clear communication. A simple follow-up email or letter confirming that no suspension had been imposed could have prevented the misunderstanding. The return-to-work meeting was poorly documented, leaving room for different interpretations. Employers should ensure that any disciplinary warnings or suspensions are clearly communicated in writing.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that constructive dismissal claims are not easy to win. The employee must show that the employer's breach was so serious it justified resigning without notice, and that the resignation was in response to that breach. A delay of two months, combined with working for a competitor, made the claimant's case difficult to sustain. For employees, the lesson is clear: if you believe you have been constructively dismissed, act promptly and seek legal advice early. For employers, clear communication and documentation remain the best defence against such claims.
Similar cases
Support Manager's constructive dismissal claim over role change fails
A Support Manager who resigned after her role was changed and workload reduced lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence.
Recruitment coordinator's constructive dismissal claim over informal warning and bonus rejected
The tribunal dismissed claims of constructive unfair dismissal and breach of contract for non-payment of a discretionary bonus, finding no repudiatory breach of trust and confidence.
Security officer's constructive dismissal claim fails: minor pay errors and disciplinary process not a breach of trust
A security officer who resigned after a disciplinary process was started following a two-hour absence from her post has lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer's conduct, including minor pay issues and a request for an occupational health assessment, did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract.
Store manager's constructive dismissal claim over foot injury rejected
A store manager who resigned after claiming her employer refused annual leave and a five-day week to rest a foot injury has lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim.