Sales promoter who quit over volunteering scheme loses constructive dismissal claim
A sales promoter with six years' service resigned the day before a disciplinary hearing after refusing to take part in a volunteering scheme. The tribunal found no constructive dismissal and no unauthorised deduction from wages.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a sales promoter from 3 November 2014 until he resigned on 29 September 2020.
- The respondent introduced a volunteering scheme in June 2020 requiring sales promoters to visit retailers and offer free assistance.
- The claimant objected to the scheme, primarily because he considered the tasks beneath him and wished to continue working from home.
- The claimant refused to attend an informal meeting on 24 June 2020 to discuss his non-compliance.
- The claimant resigned the day before a scheduled disciplinary hearing on 30 September 2020.
- The respondent deducted £233.42 from the claimant's final wages for recovery of his company van.
Timeline
-
Sales promoters removed from road
Philip Taylor instructed sales promoters to work from home due to the pandemic.
-
Volunteering scheme discussed
In a conference call, the respondent proposed a volunteering scheme for sales promoters to assist retailers.
-
Further meeting on volunteering
The claimant stated most shops were open with safety measures; the respondent encouraged promoters to start visiting retailers.
-
Claimant refused to attend meeting
The claimant emailed Philip Taylor requesting postponement or Zoom for the 24 June meeting; his request was refused.
-
Claimant failed to attend informal meeting
The claimant did not attend the scheduled informal meeting with Philip Taylor.
-
End of temporary home working announced
David Taylor emailed promoters that from 13 July they must visit retailers five days a week for volunteering.
-
Claimant raised grievance
The claimant submitted a grievance letter with 10 objections to the volunteering scheme.
-
Claimant signed off sick
The claimant was signed off work with stress and anxiety; he did not return.
-
Invitation to disciplinary hearing
The claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing on 30 September for failing to follow instructions.
-
Claimant resigned
The claimant resigned the day before the disciplinary hearing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the sales promoter was constructively dismissed when he resigned after being asked to participate in a volunteering scheme, whether he suffered health and safety detriments, and whether an unauthorised deduction was made from his final wages.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the sales promoter was not constructively dismissed because the employer's instruction to visit retailers was reasonable and the claimant's refusal was not based on a genuine health and safety concern. The tribunal also found that the deduction from wages for the company van was authorised under the contract.
- No compensation awarded as all claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you refuse a reasonable instruction from your employer, you risk being disciplined and may not succeed in a constructive dismissal claim.
- Health and safety concerns must be genuine and based on objective evidence, not personal preference, to be protected under employment law.
- Employers can deduct wages for company property if the contract allows it, even if the employee disputes the amount.
- Resigning before a disciplinary hearing can weaken a constructive dismissal claim, as it may appear you are avoiding the process.
When a volunteering scheme led to a resignation
A sales promoter with six years' service at Schwalbe Tyres UK Ltd resigned the day before a disciplinary hearing after refusing to take part in a company volunteering scheme. The scheme, introduced in June 2020, required sales promoters to visit retailers and offer free assistance. The claimant objected, saying the tasks were beneath him and he preferred to continue working from home during the pandemic. The tribunal found that the instruction was reasonable and that the claimant's refusal was not based on a genuine health and safety concern.
What the employer could have done differently
The employer had already allowed sales promoters to work from home during the first lockdown. When restrictions eased, the company decided to reintroduce face-to-face visits. The claimant raised a grievance and was signed off sick with stress. The employer could have engaged more with the claimant's concerns, but the tribunal noted that the claimant refused to attend an informal meeting to discuss his non-compliance. The disciplinary process was initiated only after the claimant failed to follow instructions.
Why this result matters
This case shows that employers can require employees to change their working arrangements as long as the instruction is reasonable. Employees who refuse and then resign may struggle to prove constructive dismissal, especially if they do not engage with the employer's process. The tribunal also rejected a claim for unauthorised deduction of wages, as the contract allowed the employer to recover the value of a company van. The case highlights the importance of following internal procedures and considering whether a refusal is based on genuine concerns rather than personal preference.
Similar cases
Personal assistant who refused to attend work during lockdown wins constructive dismissal claim
A personal assistant with 11 years' service was constructively dismissed after raising health and safety concerns about attending work during the November 2020 lockdown. The tribunal awarded her over £115,000 in total.
Before and after school club leader loses Covid-19 safety dismissal claim
A before and after school club leader who refused to attend work during the pandemic claiming serious and imminent danger has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found her belief was not reasonable given the school's risk assessments.
Nurse who raised PPE concerns during pandemic wins whistleblowing detriment claim
A district nursing team leader who raised concerns about inadequate PPE and risk assessments during the COVID-19 pandemic has won her claim for detriment against Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board. The tribunal found she was isolated from her team and her role was changed after making protected disclosures.
Manufacturing operative loses constructive dismissal claim over Covid safety concerns
An 18-year employee who walked out after being asked to work on a different line and later resigned has lost his unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found his evidence dishonest and that the employer had acted reasonably.