Dental lab manager wins constructive dismissal after hours cut without consultation
A dental lab manager with nine years' service was constructively unfairly dismissed after his employer cut his hours from 43 to 18 per week without any consultation. The tribunal found the employer's conduct amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract.
2 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #repudiatory-breach
- #reduction-of-hours
- #failure-to-consult
- #dental-lab-manager
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a dental lab manager from 10 February 2014 until his resignation on 19 February 2023.
- After the claimant's mother resigned as practice manager, the respondent's director's attitude changed and he ignored the claimant.
- On 25 January 2023, the respondent handed the claimant a letter reducing his hours from 43 to 18 per week without consultation.
- The respondent attempted to rely on a contractual lay-off clause, but there was no evidence of a reduction in work.
- The claimant resigned on 5 February 2023, stating he could no longer work for the respondent.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent as a dental lab manager.
-
Most recent contract
The claimant's most recent contract was dated 27 January 2022, but no job description was attached.
-
Claimant's wife dismissed
Dr Rangzeb dismissed the claimant's wife after she worked two days as a receptionist.
-
Mrs Dilley resigned
The claimant's mother, Mrs Rachel Dilley, resigned as practice manager, leading to a change in the respondent's attitude.
-
Staff meeting without claimant
A meeting was held among staff to which the claimant was not invited.
-
Confrontation and task reassignment
Dr Rangzeb questioned the claimant's hours in front of an apprentice, and instructed Lee Bardsley to take over some of the claimant's tasks.
-
Meeting cancelled
A meeting between the claimant and Dr Rangzeb was cancelled at short notice and never rearranged.
-
Reduction of hours letter
The claimant received a letter reducing his hours from 43 to 18 per week, effective immediately, without consultation.
-
Claimant resigned
The claimant resigned with effect from 19 February 2023, citing the respondent's conduct.
-
Resignation effective
The claimant's resignation took effect.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's conduct—specifically cutting the claimant's hours without consultation and relying on a contractual lay-off clause when there was no reduction in work—amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract, allowing the claimant to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed.
The key reasons were:
- The respondent reduced the claimant's hours from 43 to 18 per week without any consultation or warning, which was a fundamental breach of contract.
- The respondent attempted to rely on a contractual lay-off clause, but there was no evidence of a reduction in work to justify it.
- The respondent's director had changed his attitude towards the claimant after his mother resigned as practice manager, ignoring him and undermining him in front of colleagues.
Compensation is to be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers cannot unilaterally reduce an employee's hours without consultation or a genuine business reason—doing so is likely to be a repudiatory breach of contract.
- A contractual lay-off clause can only be used if there is a genuine reduction in work; using it as a pretext to cut hours will not protect against a constructive dismissal claim.
- A change in management attitude following a family member's departure can contribute to a breakdown in trust and confidence, supporting a constructive dismissal case.
- Employees who resign in response to a fundamental breach should clearly state the reasons in their resignation letter to preserve their right to claim constructive dismissal.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates how a seemingly straightforward decision to cut an employee's hours can backfire badly when done without proper process. The dental lab manager had worked for The Town Hall Group Ltd for nine years, building the lab from scratch and managing its finances. After his mother resigned as practice manager, the director's attitude changed—he began ignoring the manager, excluded him from a staff meeting, and then handed him a letter reducing his hours by more than half, with immediate effect and no consultation.
The tribunal found that the director's conduct, taken as a whole, showed he no longer intended to be bound by the contract. The purported reliance on a contractual lay-off clause failed because there was no evidence of a reduction in work. The manager resigned two weeks later, citing the treatment he had received.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent's key mistake was acting unilaterally. If the director genuinely believed there was a need to reduce hours, he should have consulted the manager first, explored alternatives, and given proper notice. The contractual lay-off clause was not a free pass—it required a genuine reduction in work, which did not exist. A fair process would have involved discussing the situation, considering the manager's long service, and reaching a mutual agreement or, failing that, following a proper redundancy procedure.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees in similar situations, this case confirms that a unilateral cut in hours without consultation is a fundamental breach of contract, entitling them to resign and claim constructive dismissal. It also shows that tribunals will look at the employer's conduct as a whole—including changes in attitude and exclusion from meetings—to assess whether trust and confidence have been destroyed. The fact that the manager had nine years' service and was given no warning or opportunity to respond made the breach all the more serious. Compensation will be decided at a later hearing, but the principle is clear: employers cannot bypass basic fairness when changing core terms of employment.
Similar cases
General Manager's constructive dismissal claim fails but holiday pay awarded
A General Manager with 13 years' service resigned claiming constructive dismissal after a dispute over a promised reward for a business sale. The tribunal rejected his claim but awarded £326.41 in unpaid holiday pay.
12-year employee resigns over grievance handling: constructive dismissal and remedy
A housing association was found to have constructively dismissed a long-serving employee after mishandling his grievance. The tribunal awarded over £11,000 in compensation, including a basic award of £6,096 and a compensatory award of £1,073.
Constructive dismissal after gradual role erosion: a breach of trust and confidence
An Operations Director with six years' service resigned after his responsibilities were progressively stripped without consultation. The tribunal found constructive unfair dismissal.
30-year employee forced to move without consultation: constructive dismissal
A community support worker with 30 years' service was constructively unfairly dismissed after her employer moved her to a location inaccessible by public transport without any consultation. The tribunal awarded £39,609.