Constructive dismissal claim fails: grievance delay not a breach of trust
A customer assistant with 12 years' service resigned after a delay in his grievance response. The tribunal found no repudiatory breach, and his constructive dismissal claim was dismissed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent for over 12 years as a Customer Assistant.
- The claimant relocated to a new store in May 2021 and raised concerns about induction, training, and management.
- The claimant went on sick leave in November 2021 due to work-related stress.
- The claimant submitted a formal grievance on 3 January 2022, which was acknowledged and investigated.
- The claimant resigned on 21 March 2022, citing the respondent's failure to respond to a chasing letter as the last straw.
- The tribunal found that the respondent's actions did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working for the respondent as a Customer Assistant.
-
Relocation to Sears store
The claimant moved to a newly refurbished store, Sears, after the Solihull store closed.
-
Incident with Chloe
The claimant had a disagreement with a Support Food Manager, Chloe, which was resolved after a meeting.
-
Family medical incident
A family member suffered a serious medical incident, and the claimant took leave.
-
Sick leave started
The claimant went on sick leave due to work-related stress and personal issues.
-
First grievance submitted
The claimant sent a formal grievance letter to head office raising multiple concerns.
-
Grievance manager appointed
Catherine Peat was appointed to hear the grievance.
-
Grievance meeting
Catherine Peat met with the claimant to discuss his grievance.
-
Chasing letter sent
The claimant sent a letter chasing a response to his second grievance.
-
Resignation letter
The claimant resigned, citing the failure to acknowledge his chasing letter as the last straw.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the respondent's conduct, particularly the delay in handling the claimant's grievances, amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, entitling the claimant to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of constructive unfair dismissal. It found that the respondent's actions, including the delay in responding to the claimant's chasing letter, did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant had not shown that the respondent intended to destroy or seriously damage the employment relationship.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A single delay in grievance handling, without other serious failings, is unlikely to amount to a repudiatory breach of contract.
- To succeed in a constructive dismissal claim, you must show that the employer's conduct was so serious it fundamentally undermined the employment relationship.
- Resigning too quickly after a perceived last straw may not give the employer a fair chance to remedy the issue.
A long-serving employee's claim that fell short
This case shows the high bar for constructive dismissal claims, even for employees with long service. The claimant, a customer assistant with 12 years at Marks and Spencer, resigned after feeling let down by the company's handling of his relocation and subsequent grievance. He pointed to a delay in receiving a response to a chasing letter as the final straw.
However, the tribunal found that the respondent's actions did not cross the line into a repudiatory breach. The grievance process had been initiated, a manager appointed, and a meeting held. The delay in responding to the chasing letter was not enough, on its own, to destroy trust and confidence.
What the employer did right
Marks and Spencer had policies in place and followed them to a reasonable degree. They appointed a grievance manager, held a meeting, and were in the process of investigating. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not given the employer a proper chance to respond before resigning. This is a common pitfall for employees considering constructive dismissal.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, this case reinforces that constructive dismissal is a high threshold. A single administrative delay, without evidence of a wider pattern of mistreatment, is unlikely to succeed. Employers, on the other hand, can take comfort that reasonable processes—even if not perfect—can defend against such claims. The key is to act promptly and communicate clearly throughout any grievance procedure.
Similar cases
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 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.
Business manager's constructive dismissal claim fails over PIP process
A business manager with 8 years' service resigned after being invited to a second disciplinary hearing for underperformance. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence and dismissed his constructive unfair dismissal claim.
Area manager's constructive dismissal claim fails after resignation by email
An area manager with 8 years' service resigned by email after his grievance was rejected. The tribunal found he was not constructively dismissed because the employer's conduct did not amount to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence.