Constructive dismissal claim over Covid-19 return to work fails
A project management team member resigned claiming constructive dismissal after being required to work on site during lockdowns. The tribunal found the employer's actions were reasonable management instructions and dismissed the claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant resigned claiming constructive dismissal due to being required to return to work during lockdowns and attend in-person meetings.
- The respondent required the claimant to work on site from 18 May 2020, citing business efficiency.
- The claimant alleged failure to implement social distancing and mask wearing at the workplace.
- On 11 and 12 January 2021, a colleague (Mr Nortley) attended meetings while unwell, later sent home.
- The claimant identified an email from the Commercial Director on 12 January 2021 as the 'last straw'.
- The tribunal found the respondent's actions were reasonable management instructions and did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence.
Timeline
-
Return to work required
The claimant was required to return to temporary office accommodation instead of working from home.
-
End of first return period
The period of required attendance at the office ended.
-
Second return to work period begins
The claimant was again required to work on site for 28 days during the second national lockdown.
-
End of second return period
The 28-day period ended.
-
Third return to work period begins
The claimant was required to work on site again.
-
Meeting with unwell colleague
The claimant attended a meeting where Mr Nortley was present and appeared unwell.
-
Final straw email
The claimant received an email from the Commercial Director regarding the previous day's events, which he considered the last straw.
-
End of third return period
The period of required attendance ended.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the employment tribunal.
-
Final merits hearing
The tribunal heard the case and dismissed the claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's cumulative actions in requiring the employee to return to work during lockdowns, and the handling of a meeting with an unwell colleague, breached the implied term of trust and confidence or the duty to take reasonable care for health and safety, so as to amount to a constructive dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
The key reason was that the employer's instructions to return to work were reasonable management decisions during the pandemic, and the alleged failures in social distancing and mask-wearing were not sufficiently serious to breach the implied term of trust and confidence. The 'last straw' email from the Commercial Director was a reasonable response to the claimant's concerns.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was unsuccessful.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can require employees to return to work during a pandemic if it is a reasonable management instruction, but should follow government guidance on social distancing and masks.
- A single incident of an unwell colleague attending a meeting may not be enough to justify a constructive dismissal claim if the employer takes reasonable steps to address it.
- Employees who resign over health and safety concerns should ensure they have raised their concerns formally and given the employer a chance to respond before resigning.
- The 'last straw' must be an act that contributes to a breach of trust and confidence; a reasonable email responding to concerns is unlikely to qualify.
When is a return-to-work request a breach of trust?
This case shows that not every workplace disagreement during the pandemic amounts to a constructive dismissal. The employee, a project management team member, resigned after being required to work on site during three separate lockdown periods between May 2020 and January 2021. He argued that the employer failed to implement proper social distancing and mask-wearing, and that a meeting with an unwell colleague was the final straw.
The tribunal accepted that the employer's instructions to return to work were based on business needs and were not unreasonable. While there were some lapses in social distancing, the employer had taken steps to address them, and the employee had not raised formal grievances about health and safety before resigning.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer did not attend the hearing, but the tribunal noted that clearer communication about safety measures and a more proactive response to the employee's concerns might have avoided the dispute. However, the key finding was that the employer's actions did not cross the line into a fundamental breach of contract.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees considering a constructive dismissal claim based on Covid-19 safety concerns, this case highlights the importance of raising concerns formally and giving the employer a chance to respond. The tribunal will look at whether the employer's actions were reasonable in the circumstances, not whether they were perfect. A single incident of an unwell colleague attending a meeting, without more, is unlikely to be sufficient to justify resignation.
Similar cases
Constructive unfair dismissal claim fails after employer followed proper grievance process
A maintenance worker with 11 years' service resigned after his employer investigated and responded to his grievance. The tribunal found the process was fair and dismissed his constructive unfair dismissal claim.
Mask exemption and redeployment: constructive dismissal claim fails
A QA operative with six years' service resigned after his grievance was rejected, claiming constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the employer had reasonable and proper cause for all its actions.
Transport director's constructive dismissal claim fails after sick pay dispute
A transport director with 20 years' service lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim after resigning over a sick pay dispute and an investigatory meeting. The tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract.
Operations manager resigns after duties removed: constructive dismissal claim succeeds
An operations manager with 8 years' service was constructively dismissed after the church removed his communications duties and excluded him from key decisions. The tribunal awarded £11,009.77.