Street Scene Worker's constructive dismissal claim fails over shielding dispute
A Street Scene Worker with disabilities resigned after his employer required a GP fitness letter to return from shielding. The tribunal rejected his constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a Street Scene Worker from 4 September 2017 until 30 June 2021.
- The claimant had physical impairments of hernias and an anxiety disorder, both found to be disabilities.
- On 18 February 2021 the claimant received NHS advice to shield due to being clinically extremely vulnerable.
- The respondent required the claimant to obtain a GP letter confirming fitness to work before returning, which the GP would not provide.
- The claimant resigned on 17 June 2021 after securing alternative employment.
- The tribunal found no breach of the implied term of trust and confidence and no disability discrimination.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant started work as a Street Scene Worker for Halton Borough Council.
-
NHS shielding advice
Claimant received NHS text advising him to shield due to being clinically extremely vulnerable.
-
Meeting with managers
Claimant met with Marcus Burke and Rob Palin; it was agreed he would stay off work until clarification from GP.
-
Claimant returned to work
Claimant returned to work but was told by Rob Palin he needed a GP letter; claimant then emailed saying he would shield until 31 March.
-
Letter from Rob Palin
Rob Palin hand-delivered a letter to claimant setting out requirements for return to work.
-
Meeting with Rob Palin
Difficult meeting where claimant apologised for his behaviour; referral to Occupational Health agreed.
-
Occupational Health referral
Rob Palin completed the Occupational Health referral form.
-
First return to work
Claimant returned to work but was allocated to yard duty; he left after a short time and went off sick.
-
Fit note for anxiety
Claimant submitted a fit note citing an anxiety disorder, unfit for work until 21 April.
-
Occupational Health assessment
Claimant attended Occupational Health assessment.
-
Occupational Health report
Report stated claimant fit for work with restrictions (lift up to 10-15kg).
-
Return to work
Claimant returned to work; assigned to a team rather than ride-on mower; wellbeing review process triggered.
-
Overtime request
Claimant asked to work overtime on 8 May; he swapped the shift.
-
Request to work alone
Claimant asked to work alone; he expressed unhappiness.
-
Shielding for hernia operation
Claimant began shielding prior to hernia operation on 3 June.
-
Resignation
Claimant submitted his resignation, having secured alternative employment.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended; he started new job on 1 July.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's insistence on a GP fitness letter before allowing the claimant to return to work after shielding advice amounted to a fundamental breach of contract (constructive dismissal) and whether it discriminated against him because of his disabilities (hernia and anxiety).
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It held that the respondent's requirement for a GP letter was a reasonable and proportionate response to the shielding advice, and not a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The claimant resigned after securing alternative employment, but the tribunal found no fundamental breach by the employer.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can require medical evidence before allowing a shielded employee to return, provided the request is reasonable and proportionate.
- A constructive dismissal claim requires a fundamental breach of contract; the employee must not resign before the breach occurs.
- Disability discrimination claims require evidence that the employer's actions were unfavourable because of the disability, not just that the employee had a disability.
- Resigning after securing another job can weaken a constructive dismissal claim if the employer's conduct was not the real reason for leaving.
When shielding advice meets employer requirements
This case shows the tension between an employee's health advice and an employer's duty to ensure a safe workplace. The claimant, a Street Scene Worker with three years and ten months' service, was told by the NHS to shield because he was clinically extremely vulnerable. When he wanted to return, his employer, Halton Borough Council, asked for a GP letter confirming he was fit to work. The GP refused to provide such a letter, leading to a stand-off that ended with the claimant resigning after finding a new job.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that the council's request for a GP letter was not unreasonable. Given the serious nature of shielding advice, the employer was entitled to seek reassurance that the claimant could work safely. The claimant had also been offered alternative duties and a referral to Occupational Health, which the tribunal saw as reasonable steps. There was no evidence that the council acted in a way that destroyed trust and confidence. The disability discrimination claims also failed because the council's actions were not unfavourable treatment because of the disabilities – they were about managing health and safety risks.
What could have been done differently
The claimant might have avoided the dispute by engaging more fully with the Occupational Health process and exploring alternative work options. The council could have communicated more clearly about why the GP letter was needed and what would happen if it was not provided. However, the tribunal concluded that the council's overall approach was within the range of reasonable responses.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that constructive dismissal claims are hard to win. The employee must show a fundamental breach of contract that leaves them no choice but to resign. Here, the employer's insistence on medical evidence was seen as a reasonable management step, not a breach. For employees with disabilities, it also shows that not every disagreement about adjustments will amount to discrimination – the employer's actions must be judged in context.
Similar cases
SEO Lead's constructive dismissal claim fails: tribunal finds no disability or breach
A tribunal rejected a constructive dismissal and disability discrimination claim by a Harrods SEO Lead, finding he was not disabled and that the employer's performance management was not a breach of contract.
Procurement director's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing and disability fails
A procurement director who resigned after raising concerns about commission on expired contracts has lost her tribunal claims for constructive unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and disability discrimination.
Constructive dismissal claim fails: role overlap did not breach trust and confidence
A Frames Department Manager who resigned after a new Product Manager role was created lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer's actions were not a fundamental breach of contract.
Service engineer resigns over PPE and drug test: constructive dismissal claim fails
An employment tribunal dismissed a service engineer's claim for constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination after he resigned over a PPE dispute and a drug test he failed to complete.