Head of operations wins constructive dismissal after director chaired own appeal

When the decision-maker is also the judge

This case highlights a common pitfall for small businesses: the failure to separate the roles of decision-maker and appeal judge. The claimant, a head of operations and finances with four years' service, had worked from France with the director's knowledge since early 2021. When the director became concerned about tax implications, she initiated a disciplinary process alleging the claimant had permanently relocated without informing the company.

The disciplinary hearing was chaired by the same director, Ms Meyer. The claimant raised concerns about her impartiality, but she also chaired the appeal hearing. The tribunal found that this lack of independence, combined with the director's involvement in the investigation, made the process unfair.

The final straw that broke the trust

The most damaging act came on 10 March 2022, when the claimant received the appeal outcome (which upheld the disciplinary decision) together with an invitation to a new disciplinary hearing on allegations that had never been raised before. The tribunal viewed this as the final straw in a course of conduct that cumulatively destroyed the trust and confidence required for the employment relationship.

The claimant resigned the next day. The tribunal accepted that the resignation was in response to the employer's breach, not an affirmation of the contract.

What employers can learn

For small employers without dedicated HR functions, the lesson is clear: when an employee raises concerns about impartiality, it is essential to appoint an independent person to handle the appeal. Using the same person for investigation, discipline, and appeal creates an appearance of bias that tribunals will scrutinise heavily.

The case also shows that piling new allegations onto an employee who has just received an appeal outcome is likely to be seen as unreasonable behaviour, particularly if the new allegations have not been properly investigated.

What this means for similar claims

Constructive dismissal claims often fail because the employee cannot show a fundamental breach. Here, the cumulative effect of multiple procedural failures—combined with the final straw of the simultaneous appeal outcome and new disciplinary invitation—was enough to cross that threshold. The case will proceed to a remedy hearing where compensation will be assessed, including possible reductions for contributory fault or the chance that the claimant could have been fairly dismissed (a Polkey reduction). The ACAS Code of Practice applies, so an uplift of up to 25% is possible if the employer unreasonably failed to follow it.