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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a QA operative from 9 October 2016.
- He was redeployed from the mobile team to the flat panel team in June 2020 due to a reduction in mobile work.
- He declared himself mask exempt in November 2020, leading to redeployment to the warehouse.
- He was suspended in December 2020 after an allegation of aggressive behaviour, but no disciplinary action was taken.
- His grievance about various issues was rejected in August 2021, and he resigned on 18 August 2021.
- The tribunal found that the employer had reasonable and proper cause for all its actions.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a QA operative.
-
Return from furlough and redeployment
Claimant returned from furlough and was moved from mobile to flat panel team.
-
Mask exemption declared
Claimant declared himself mask exempt, leading to individual risk assessment.
-
Redeployment to warehouse
Claimant moved to warehouse role due to mask exemption.
-
Allegation of aggression
Covering FLM alleged claimant acted aggressively; he was suspended.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Disciplinary hearing held; no further action taken.
-
Proposed move to spares
Claimant informed of proposed move to spares department.
-
Sickness absence and grievance
Claimant went on sick leave for stress and submitted a grievance.
-
Grievance outcome
Grievance rejected by Mr Campling.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned with immediate effect.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's conduct — including redeployments due to a mask exemption, a suspension over an aggression allegation, and a rejected grievance — breached the implied term of trust and confidence, entitling the employee to resign and claim constructive dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of constructive unfair dismissal.
- The employer had reasonable and proper cause for redeploying the claimant after he declared himself mask exempt during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The suspension following an allegation of aggression was not a breach of trust and confidence, as it was a reasonable response to the allegation.
- The grievance outcome rejecting the claimant's complaints was not a 'last straw' because the employer had acted reasonably throughout.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you resign and claim constructive dismissal, you must show the employer committed a fundamental breach of contract — not just that you were unhappy with decisions.
- Employers can redeploy employees for legitimate health and safety reasons, such as COVID-19 mask exemptions, as long as they act reasonably.
- A rejected grievance will not be a 'last straw' if the employer had reasonable grounds for its earlier actions.
- Suspension pending investigation of an aggression allegation is usually reasonable and does not in itself breach trust and confidence.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the high bar for constructive dismissal claims, particularly where an employer has acted in response to health and safety concerns. The claimant, a QA operative with six years' service, resigned after a series of events he felt undermined trust and confidence: redeployment due to his mask exemption, a suspension over an aggression allegation, and a rejected grievance. However, the tribunal found that the employer had reasonable and proper cause for each step.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant's case failed because the employer's actions were all justified. For example, the redeployment from the flat panel team to the warehouse was a direct response to his mask exemption during the pandemic — a proportionate measure to keep him and others safe. The suspension was based on a genuine allegation of aggression, and the disciplinary process cleared him. The grievance outcome was thorough and reasonable. To succeed, the claimant would have needed to show that the employer acted without reasonable cause, which he could not.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This outcome reinforces that constructive dismissal is not a remedy for general dissatisfaction with management decisions. Employees who resign must point to a specific, fundamental breach of contract — such as a serious failure to follow procedure or a deliberate undermining of trust. Here, the employer's actions were all within the range of reasonable responses, so the claim failed. For employees considering a similar claim, it is vital to gather evidence that the employer's conduct was unreasonable, not just unwelcome.
Similar cases
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.
Transport director's constructive dismissal claim fails after sick pay dispute
A transport director with 20 years' service lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim after resigning over a sick pay dispute and an investigatory meeting. The tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract.
Constructive dismissal claim over Covid-19 return to work fails
A project management team member resigned claiming constructive dismissal after being required to work on site during lockdowns. The tribunal found the employer's actions were reasonable management instructions and dismissed the claim.
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.