Head of Maintenance loses constructive dismissal claim against Roehampton University
A tribunal has dismissed a head of maintenance's constructive unfair dismissal claim against Roehampton University, finding that the employer's handling of workplace incidents did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #trust-and-confidence
- #workplace-violence
- #hr-support
- #investigation-delay
- #stress-and-anxiety
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 13 February 2017 as Estates Maintenance Manager, later Head of Maintenance, until resigning on 24 September 2021.
- The claimant relied on six incidents over four years, including threats from colleagues and alleged lack of HR support.
- The final incident involved a subordinate throwing keys at the claimant, causing injury and distress.
- The respondent investigated the incident, appointed an investigator, and completed a report within three months.
- The tribunal found the respondent's actions did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract.
- The claimant's claim of constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as Estates Maintenance Manager.
-
Promotion to Head of Maintenance
Claimant's title changed to Head of Maintenance.
-
Colin Mayer incident
Colin Mayer swore at and threatened the claimant; HR offered only anger management for Mayer.
-
Fraud incident
Claimant suspected overtime fraud; HR incorrectly said CCTV could not be used as evidence.
-
Tony Brown incident
Tony Brown threatened to 'fist' the claimant; suspended but later allowed to leave with settlement.
-
First Wayne Morgan incident
Wayne Morgan shouted at claimant; HR advised speaking to line manager but no further action taken.
-
Second Wayne Morgan incident
Morgan shouted at another engineer; claimant sought support but no disciplinary action followed.
-
Keith Wickes incident
Keith Wickes threw keys at claimant, causing injury; claimant reported it as assault.
-
Investigation appointed
Simon Dorman appointed to investigate the Wickes incident.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned with immediate effect, citing treatment by the university.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a series of incidents over four years, including threats from colleagues and alleged lack of HR support, cumulatively breached the implied term of trust and confidence, entitling the employee to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of constructive unfair dismissal. It found that while the employee faced difficult incidents, the university's responses were not so unreasonable as to destroy trust and confidence. The investigation into the final incident was timely and thorough. No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A single act or a series of acts may amount to a breach of trust and confidence, but the employer's overall response matters — a reasonable investigation can prevent a finding of constructive dismissal.
- Employees considering resigning and claiming constructive dismissal should act promptly after the alleged breach; delay can weaken the claim.
- HR support that is not perfect but is reasonable may still satisfy the employer's obligations — the bar for constructive dismissal is high.
A pattern of incidents, but no breach
This case shows the difficulty of proving constructive unfair dismissal when an employer has taken steps to address workplace issues, even if those steps are not perfect. The head of maintenance at Roehampton University resigned after four years of incidents involving threats from colleagues and what he saw as inadequate HR support. The final straw was a subordinate throwing keys at him, causing injury. The university appointed an investigator and completed a report within three months.
What the employer did right
The tribunal found that the university's actions did not destroy trust and confidence. The investigation into the key-throwing incident was prompt and thorough. Earlier incidents, while concerning, were dealt with in a way that was not unreasonable. For example, when a colleague threatened to 'fist' the employee, the university suspended the colleague and later allowed him to leave with a settlement. The tribunal noted that the employee's high-pressure role and the university's resource constraints were relevant context.
Why the result matters
Constructive dismissal claims require a fundamental breach of contract. This case illustrates that an employer's imperfect but reasonable response to workplace conflict may not meet that threshold. Employees who feel unsupported should consider raising formal grievances and giving the employer a chance to remedy the situation before resigning. The claim was dismissed, meaning the employee received no compensation.
Similar cases
Commission scheme change: constructive dismissal claim fails as non-contractual benefit
A Business Development Manager who resigned after his employer changed his commission scheme lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the commission was never contractual and the employer acted reasonably.
PWE sign-off delay: resignation over unauthorised absence meeting was not constructive dismissal
A graduate trainee accountant who resigned after being invited to a disciplinary meeting for unauthorised absence failed to prove constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the employer's conduct did not breach trust and confidence.
Constructive dismissal claim fails after employee accepted alternative role
A stores person who resigned after a security breach investigation lost his constructive unfair dismissal claim because he had accepted a new role before quitting.
Constructive dismissal claim fails after informal complaints not pursued as grievances
An Operational Support Grade at HMP Garth who resigned after alleging bullying and poor complaint handling lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably and the complaints were not formal grievances.