Quality Auditor loses constructive dismissal claim over shoes and contract error
A quality auditor with 2 years 8 months' service resigned after a series of workplace issues including ill-fitting safety shoes and an incorrect notice period. The tribunal dismissed her constructive unfair dismissal claim, finding no fundamental breach by the employer.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #last-straw
- #work-shoes
- #notice-period-error
- #pay-discrepancy
- #deposit-order
Key facts
- Claimant employed as Quality Auditor from April 2018 to December 2020.
- Claimant's pay was not increased to match colleagues until July 2019 after she raised it.
- Claimant had issues with ill-fitting safety shoes from December 2019; respondent attempted to resolve but delays occurred.
- In November 2020, claimant received a new contract with an incorrect three-month notice period (should have been one month).
- Claimant resigned on 23 November 2020 without mentioning the shoe issue in her resignation letter.
- Claimant's claim for constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed; the respondent's conduct was found not to be a fundamental breach.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a Quality Auditor at Stateside Foods Limited.
-
Probation ended
Claimant's 12-week probationary period ended; she expected a pay rise to match colleagues but did not receive it.
-
Discovered pay discrepancy
Claimant learned she was being paid less than colleagues doing the same work.
-
Pay increase implemented
After raising the issue, claimant's pay was increased to match colleagues, but arrears were not paid.
-
Shoe issues began
Claimant's second pair of safety shoes broke down; she experienced foot pain and requested permission to wear her own shoes.
-
Occupational health referral
Claimant contacted Health and Safety about foot pain; referred to Occupational Health.
-
Alternative shoes ordered
Respondent ordered alternative shoes in size 4 (claimant wears 3.5); they were too big when they arrived.
-
New contract issued with error
Claimant received a new contract stating a three-month notice period instead of one month; she believed this was a mistake.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned with one month's notice, citing the contract issue as the final straw; her resignation letter gave no reason.
-
ET1 presented
Claimant presented her claim for unpaid wages and constructive unfair dismissal.
The legal issue
Whether the employer's actions (pay discrepancy, safety shoe problems, and an erroneous notice period in a new contract) constituted a fundamental breach of contract entitling the employee to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for constructive unfair dismissal. The key reasons were:
- The pay discrepancy was resolved in July 2019, over a year before resignation, and could not be the 'last straw'.
- The shoe issue, while ongoing, did not amount to a fundamental breach as the employer had taken steps to resolve it.
- The erroneous notice period in the new contract was a mistake corrected upon query; it did not repudiate the contract.
- The claimant's resignation letter gave no reason, and she had already secured another job, undermining the link between any breach and resignation.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A 'last straw' must be part of a series of acts that together amount to a fundamental breach; isolated grievances resolved long ago do not count.
- Resignation letters should clearly state the reasons for leaving to help establish a causal link between the employer's conduct and the resignation.
- Employers who take reasonable steps to address issues (e.g., ordering alternative shoes) are less likely to be found in fundamental breach.
- A mistaken notice period in a contract is unlikely to be a fundamental breach if it is corrected promptly and not acted upon to the employee's detriment.
This case illustrates the high bar for constructive dismissal claims, particularly when an employee resigns without clearly linking their departure to a specific breach of contract. The claimant, a quality auditor with nearly three years' service, experienced several frustrations: a pay discrepancy that was eventually corrected, ongoing problems with ill-fitting safety shoes, and a new contract that mistakenly stated a three-month notice period instead of one month. She resigned in November 2020, citing the contract error as the final straw, but her resignation letter gave no reasons.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal found that none of the employer's actions, individually or together, amounted to a fundamental breach of contract. The pay issue had been resolved over a year earlier, the shoe problem was being addressed (alternative shoes had been ordered, though they were too big), and the contract error was a genuine mistake that the employer was willing to correct. Crucially, the claimant had already accepted another job before resigning, and her resignation letter did not mention any of her grievances. This made it difficult to show that she resigned in response to a breach.
What could have been done differently
For employees, this case underscores the importance of documenting grievances and linking a resignation explicitly to the employer's conduct. A clear resignation letter setting out the reasons—especially the 'last straw'—can make or break a constructive dismissal claim. For employers, the case shows that taking reasonable steps to address issues (such as ordering alternative footwear) and correcting administrative errors promptly can help defend against such claims.
Why this matters
Constructive dismissal claims require a fundamental breach of contract that goes to the root of the employment relationship. Minor frustrations, even if persistent, may not meet this threshold, especially if the employer is making efforts to resolve them. This case also highlights the importance of timing: grievances that are old or resolved are unlikely to support a claim, and a resignation that coincides with securing alternative employment may appear opportunistic rather than driven by the employer's conduct.
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 dismissal claim allowed to proceed after employer ignored redundancy request for 39 days
A former People Advisor who resigned after her employer failed to respond to her redundancy request for 39 days has been allowed to pursue claims for a redundancy payment and constructive unfair dismissal.
Security officer's constructive dismissal claim fails: minor pay errors and disciplinary process not a breach of trust
A security officer who resigned after a disciplinary process was started following a two-hour absence from her post has lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer's conduct, including minor pay issues and a request for an occupational health assessment, did not amount to a repudiatory breach of contract.
Constructive dismissal claims survive strike-out attempt: lessons for employers on trust and confidence
An experienced HR professional's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination will proceed to a full hearing after the tribunal refused to strike them out, though deposit orders were made.