Data protection clerk wins constructive dismissal after workload ignored and statistics misused
A part-time data protection clerk with 27 years' service was constructively unfairly dismissed after her employer failed to address her excessive workload and used flawed statistics to justify not replacing a colleague's hours. The tribunal found a breach of trust and confidence.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant worked as a data protection clerk for the respondent from 1994 until her resignation on 27 May 2021.
- From March 2020, the claimant lost the support of a colleague who had provided 10 hours per week assistance, increasing her workload.
- In November 2020, the claimant raised workload concerns with her manager, who led her to believe additional support would be provided, but no support was actually given.
- In May 2021, the claimant was told that a colleague's hours would not be replaced, based on statistics that did not reflect the true workload.
- The claimant resigned on 20 May 2021, citing the respondent's decisions and lack of support as the reason.
- The tribunal found that the respondent breached the implied term of trust and confidence, leading to a constructive unfair dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working for the respondent as a data protection clerk, initially 20 hours per week.
-
Loss of colleague support
Due to Covid-19, the claimant's colleague Gita Modi stopped providing 10 hours per week assistance, increasing the claimant's workload.
-
Workload concerns raised
Claimant met with team leader Tina Bishop and manager Keith Bainbridge to raise excessive workload issues; Bainbridge led her to believe additional support would be arranged.
-
Stress-related sickness absence
Claimant was off work on 17 and 18 January 2021 due to a stress-related condition.
-
Colleague's departure
Gita Modi requested to leave the data protection team; her hours were not replaced.
-
Meeting with Bainbridge
Claimant was told that Ms Modi's hours would not be replaced, based on statistics showing a drop in requests; claimant felt misled.
-
Statistics provided
Claimant received the statistics used to justify the decision; she disputed their accuracy.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned by letter, citing the decisions made about staffing and lack of support.
-
Last working day
Claimant's employment ended after working notice and using annual leave.
-
Exit interview
Claimant attended an exit interview, outlining the reasons for her resignation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's failure to address an employee's excessive workload and its use of misleading statistics to justify not providing support amounted to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, and whether that breach entitled the employee to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
- The claimant, a data protection clerk with 27 years' service, resigned after her workload became unmanageable when a colleague's 10 hours per week support ceased during the pandemic.
- Despite raising concerns, her manager led her to believe additional support would be provided, but none materialised. In May 2021, she was told the colleague's hours would not be replaced, based on statistics that did not reflect the true workload.
- The tribunal found this was a breach of mutual trust and confidence, constituting a constructive dismissal. A remedy hearing will determine compensation.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you raise workload concerns and are promised support, ensure you follow up in writing to create a clear record of the promise and any failure to deliver.
- Employers should use accurate and transparent data when making staffing decisions; relying on flawed statistics can be a key factor in a constructive dismissal claim.
- Length of service matters: a long-serving employee who has worked without issue for decades is more likely to succeed in showing that the employer's conduct destroyed trust and confidence.
- A single 'last straw' event, such as being told support will not be provided based on misleading data, can complete a series of minor breaches and justify resignation.
When broken promises and flawed data lead to constructive dismissal
This case illustrates how a series of failures by an employer to address an employee's workload can cumulatively destroy the trust and confidence needed for the employment relationship. The claimant, a data protection clerk who had worked for the NHS Trust for nearly 27 years, saw her workload increase significantly when a colleague's 10 hours per week support stopped during the pandemic. Despite raising her concerns, her manager led her to believe that additional help would be arranged – but no support was ever provided.
The final straw came when the claimant was told that the colleague's hours would not be replaced, based on statistics that the tribunal found did not reflect the true workload. The claimant felt misled and resigned shortly after. The tribunal concluded that the Trust's conduct, including the failure to deliver on promises of support and the reliance on flawed data, breached the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.
What the employer could have done differently
The Trust could have avoided this outcome by taking the claimant's workload concerns seriously from the outset. A proper assessment of her workload, rather than relying on statistics that did not capture the full picture, would have been a reasonable step. Even if the decision not to replace the colleague's hours was justified, the way it was communicated – without acknowledging the claimant's concerns or the inaccuracies in the data – undermined the relationship. An honest and transparent discussion about the staffing decision, coupled with any possible interim support, might have prevented the resignation.
Why this matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that constructive dismissal claims can succeed even when the employer's actions are not deliberately malicious. A pattern of broken promises, ignored concerns, and reliance on misleading information can be enough to establish a breach of trust and confidence. For employees considering a similar claim, it highlights the importance of documenting all communications about workload and support promises. For employers, it serves as a reminder that failing to address workload issues and using flawed data to justify decisions can have serious legal consequences, especially when dealing with long-serving employees who have previously performed without issue.
Similar cases
Team manager awarded £18,900 after removal of duties and disciplinary action
A team manager with eight years' service was constructively dismissed after his employer removed all managerial duties for over 10 months and then disciplined him for swearing. The tribunal awarded £18,923.
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.
Mask exemption and redeployment: constructive dismissal claim fails
A QA operative with six years' service resigned after his grievance was rejected, claiming constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the employer had reasonable and proper cause for all its actions.
Golf course manager's constructive dismissal claim fails over board members' conduct
A golf course manager who resigned after being called a 'dickhead' by a board member and feeling undermined by the new captain has lost his constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence.