Costs warning letter and grievance refusal: constructive dismissal claim fails

What this case shows in practice

This case illustrates the difficulty of proving constructive dismissal when an employer has followed collective consultation processes. The claimant, a long-serving Customer Accounts Officer, resigned after his employer introduced new working measures following a TUPE transfer. He argued that the measures, the refusal to process his grievance, and a costs warning letter together destroyed trust and confidence. However, the tribunal found that the measures were collectively agreed with trade unions and did not breach his contract. The grievance refusal, while perhaps poor practice, was not a contractual breach because the matter had been dealt with through union consultation.

What the employer could have done differently

The employer's refusal to process the grievance was a risk, but the tribunal accepted that the measures were not individually negotiable. A more empathetic response — even explaining why the grievance could not be heard — might have reduced the claimant's sense of unfairness. The costs warning letter, sent after the claimant had already decided to resign, was also a misstep; while not a breach, it added to the perception of hostility.

Why this result matters

This decision reinforces that constructive dismissal claims are difficult to win where the employer has followed proper collective consultation. Employees who believe they have been constructively dismissed should carefully consider whether any single act or series of acts amounts to a fundamental breach. A feeling of unfairness, without a clear contractual breach, is unlikely to succeed. The case also highlights that costs warning letters, while permissible, can backfire if they appear to pressure an employee not to bring a legitimate claim.