HR officer with 24 years' service loses constructive dismissal claim after delay in resigning
A long-serving HR officer who resigned after a nine-month disciplinary investigation has lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal ruled she had affirmed her contract by waiting over seven months to resign.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #delay-in-investigation
- #failure-to-communicate
- #affirmation-of-contract
- #last-straw-doctrine
Key facts
- The claimant resigned on 18 October 2022 claiming repudiatory breaches by the respondent.
- The investigation into the claimant's conduct took 9 months, from June 2021 to March 2022.
- The claimant received only one update email during the investigation, on 2 September 2021.
- The claimant raised a grievance on 21 June 2022 but was told to raise issues at the disciplinary hearing.
- The claimant did not attend the disciplinary hearing on 14 July 2022 and a first written warning was issued in her absence.
- The claimant delayed resigning for over 7 months after the alleged breaches began, which amounted to affirmation of the contract.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Claimant joined the respondent as an administrative assistant.
-
Meeting with colleagues
Claimant had an exchange of words with a colleague during a team meeting, leading to complaints from five employees.
-
Investigation commenced
Mrs McDermott informed the claimant of an investigation into her conduct following the meeting.
-
Claimant interviewed
Claimant was interviewed as part of the investigation by Mrs Gooday.
-
Update email sent
Mrs Gooday emailed the claimant to say interviews were complete and transcripts were awaited.
-
Investigation report received
Claimant received the 300-page investigation report by post without prior notice.
-
Claimant signed off sick
Claimant was signed off work due to stress and remained on sick leave until resignation.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a formal grievance about the disciplinary process, stating trust and confidence had broken down.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant did not attend; a first written warning was issued in her absence.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned with immediate effect, citing repudiatory breaches.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's delays and failures in the disciplinary process amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and if so, whether the claimant had affirmed the contract by not resigning promptly.
The outcome
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
The tribunal accepted that the respondent's investigation took too long (nine months) and that communication with the claimant was poor. However, the key reason for the decision was that the claimant had affirmed the contract by continuing to work and delaying her resignation for over seven months after the alleged breaches began.
No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you believe your employer has fundamentally breached your contract, you should resign promptly – delaying too long can be seen as accepting the breach.
- Continuing to work and engage with the disciplinary process after a breach may amount to affirmation of the contract, weakening a constructive dismissal claim.
- Even if an employer's process is flawed, a tribunal will consider whether you acted quickly enough to show you did not accept the situation.
A case of timing over substance
This case shows that even when an employer's disciplinary process is slow and poorly communicated, a constructive dismissal claim can fail if the employee does not resign quickly enough. The HR officer, who had worked for the London Borough of Haringey for 24 years, resigned after a nine-month investigation into her conduct. She argued that the delays and lack of updates destroyed the trust and confidence between her and her employer.
What the employer could have done differently
The tribunal acknowledged that the investigation took too long and that the claimant received only one update in nine months. A more proactive approach – regular updates, a clear timeline, and earlier resolution of her grievance – might have prevented the breakdown in trust. However, the tribunal's focus was on the claimant's response: she continued to work, raised a grievance, and only resigned seven months after the investigation report was received. This delay was fatal to her claim.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees considering a constructive dismissal claim, the key lesson is timing. The 'last straw' doctrine requires that you resign promptly after the final breach – otherwise you risk being seen as having accepted the situation. Even a long-serving employee with a strong case on the facts can lose if they delay too long. Employers, meanwhile, should note that while they may win on a technicality, poor process and communication can still damage trust and morale.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim fails after employee accepted alternative role
A stores person who resigned after a security breach investigation lost his constructive unfair dismissal claim because he had accepted a new role before quitting.
Constructive dismissal after grievance ignored and apology contradicted
An HR and Recruitment Coordinator won her constructive unfair dismissal claim after her employer failed to deal with her grievance and sent mixed messages that destroyed trust and confidence. The tribunal awarded £15,195.90.
26-year mental health practitioner wins constructive dismissal after nine-month delay
A senior mental health practitioner with 26 years' service was constructively dismissed after the trust took nine months to investigate a minor disciplinary matter and failed to handle his grievance promptly. The tribunal found a repudiatory breach of trust and confidence.
Food service coach loses constructive dismissal claim after working 20 months after alleged incidents
A food service coach who resigned citing racist comments and harassment lost her constructive dismissal and discrimination claims after the tribunal found she had affirmed her contract by continuing to work for 20 months.