Furloughed to block server access: when a breach of trust isn't enough for constructive dismissal
A design technician lost his constructive unfair dismissal claim after the tribunal found that being placed on furlough to prevent server access was a breach of trust, but not serious enough to justify resignation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #last-straw-doctrine
- #furlough
- #implied-term-trust-and-confidence
- #affirmation
Key facts
- Claimant worked as a design technician from 19 March 2018 until 3 December 2021.
- Claimant's father was former managing director who left acrimoniously in December 2020.
- Claimant's IT access was removed in November 2020 due to concerns about his father's actions.
- Claimant was placed on full furlough from late January/early February 2021 to 24 March 2021 to prevent server access.
- Claimant resigned on 5 November 2021, citing a series of events breaching trust and confidence.
- The tribunal found only one act (furlough for improper reason) capable of breach, but it was not sufficiently serious alone.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began working as a design technician for CCTV Monitoring Ltd.
-
Father's email deletion
Mr Forward discovered Mr Capstick (claimant's father) had deleted over 600 emails from the server.
-
IT access removed
Claimant's access to computer and email systems was removed due to concerns about his father.
-
IT access restored
Claimant's access to the systems was restored.
-
Meeting with Mr Forward
Meeting discussed claimant's difficulties with time lapse work; Mr Forward was evasive about IT access removal.
-
Phone call with Mr Brownhill
Mr Forward told Mr Brownhill he would put claimant on full furlough to prevent server access.
-
Placed on full furlough
Claimant was placed on full furlough to prevent access to server and emails.
-
Return to flexi furlough
Claimant returned to work on flexi furlough, working 50% hours.
-
Grievance submitted
Claimant submitted a grievance about being contacted out of hours and trust issues.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned with notice, citing lack of corrective action.
-
Last day of work
Claimant's employment ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a series of events, including being placed on furlough for an improper reason, amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, entitling the design technician to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
- The tribunal found that only one act – being placed on full furlough to prevent server access – was capable of being a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.
- However, that act was not sufficiently serious on its own to justify resignation, and the claimant had affirmed the contract by continuing to work for several months after the furlough ended.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A single breach of trust may not be enough for constructive dismissal – it must be serious enough to justify resigning without notice.
- Continuing to work for months after a breach can be seen as affirming the contract and waiving the right to claim constructive dismissal.
- Employers should not use furlough for reasons unrelated to the coronavirus scheme, as it can breach trust and confidence.
- Documenting the reasons for decisions like furlough can help defend against claims of improper motive.
When a breach of trust isn't enough
This case shows the high bar for constructive unfair dismissal claims. The design technician had worked for CCTV Monitoring Ltd for nearly four years when his father, the former managing director, left acrimoniously. Concerned about server security, the company removed the technician's IT access for a few days, then placed him on full furlough to prevent him accessing the server.
The tribunal accepted that using furlough for this purpose was a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. But it was the only act in a series of events that the tribunal found capable of being a breach. The technician had continued to work for months after returning from furlough, which the tribunal saw as affirming the contract.
What the employer could have done differently
CCTV Monitoring Ltd could have avoided the breach entirely by being transparent about its security concerns and finding a less drastic solution than furlough. Using a government scheme designed to protect jobs during the pandemic for an unrelated purpose was always risky. A frank conversation about the technician's role and access rights might have resolved the issue without damaging trust.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees considering a constructive dismissal claim, timing is critical. The longer you stay after a breach, the harder it is to argue that the trust has been destroyed. For employers, this case is a reminder that even a single act can breach the implied term – but that breach must be serious enough to justify immediate resignation. Using furlough as a tool to restrict access, rather than for its intended purpose, is a clear example of what not to do.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim fails after employee stayed on for months
A solutions engineer who resigned after a performance improvement plan and grievance process lost his constructive dismissal claim because he stayed in the job too long after the alleged breaches.
IT professional's constructive dismissal claim fails after affirming contract
An IT professional who resigned claiming breach of trust and confidence lost his constructive unfair dismissal case. The tribunal found he had affirmed the contract by continuing to work for months after the alleged 'last straw'.
Hotel night worker's constructive dismissal claim struck out after delay in resigning
A tribunal struck out a constructive unfair dismissal claim from a night team member who waited 2.5 months after the last alleged breach before resigning, finding he had affirmed the contract.
Head of Finance loses constructive dismissal claim after refusing return to office
A tribunal has ruled that a YMCA's request for a senior manager to return to blended working did not breach her contract, dismissing her claim for constructive unfair dismissal.