Deputy General Manager loses constructive dismissal claim after maternity leave changes
A deputy general manager with 12 years' service failed to prove constructive dismissal after her employer changed her role while she was on maternity leave. The tribunal found the employer's actions were reasonable and most claims were brought too late.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #maternity-leave
- #failure-to-inform
- #christmas-party-exclusion
- #special-projects-role-offer
- #bonus-non-payment
- #grievance-handling
- #time-barred-claims
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent from September 2020 following a TUPE transfer from VFS.
- She commenced maternity leave on 10 March 2021 and returned on 1 February 2022.
- The respondent did not inform her during maternity leave of the closure of the Manchester office, departure of her two direct reports, or change of line manager.
- She was not invited to a hastily arranged Christmas party in December 2021 due to a policy based on Covid-19 restrictions.
- The respondent offered her a new Deputy General Manager - Special Projects role, which she considered a demotion but the tribunal found was not.
- She resigned on 14 July 2022 after her grievance was not upheld.
Timeline
-
Started employment at RNT
Claimant began working for RNT Ltd, which later transferred to VFS and then to the respondent.
-
TUPE transfer to respondent
Claimant's employment transferred from VFS to Artionis (UK) Ltd under TUPE.
-
Informed respondent of pregnancy
Claimant informed the respondent she was pregnant and had a meeting with HR manager Ms Stephant.
-
Maternity leave commenced
Claimant started her maternity leave.
-
Christmas party not invited
Respondent held a scaled-down Christmas party; claimant was not invited due to Covid-19 policy.
-
Notified return from maternity leave
Claimant gave written notice of her intention to return from maternity leave.
-
Maternity leave ended
Claimant's maternity leave ended and she commenced annual leave.
-
Offered Special Projects role
Respondent offered claimant the Deputy General Manager - Special Projects role, which she later declined.
-
Meeting with managers
Claimant met with Mr Rana and Mr Khot to discuss changes and was informed of her new line manager.
-
Submitted grievance
Claimant submitted a grievance, which was not upheld after investigation and appeal.
-
Resigned
Claimant resigned with immediate effect.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was subjected to unfavourable treatment because of her maternity leave, discriminated against on grounds of sex, or constructively dismissed. It also considered whether her claims were brought within the applicable time limits.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's complaints.
- Most of the claims were presented out of time. The tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have brought them earlier, and it was not just and equitable to extend time.
- The remaining claims—including unfavourable treatment for taking maternity leave, direct sex discrimination, detriment for family reasons, and constructive unfair dismissal—were considered on their merits but all failed.
- The tribunal found that the respondent's actions, such as not informing the claimant of changes during her leave and offering a new role, were not motivated by her maternity leave or sex, and did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Time limits are strict: most employment tribunal claims must be brought within three months of the act complained of. Delaying can mean losing the right to claim even if the treatment was unfair.
- Employers can restructure roles while an employee is on maternity leave, provided they offer suitable alternative employment and do not discriminate.
- A grievance process that does not uphold a complaint does not automatically mean the employer has acted unfairly; the tribunal will assess the employer's overall conduct.
- Being excluded from a social event due to a general policy (e.g., Covid restrictions) is unlikely to be discriminatory if applied consistently.
A case about timing and reasonable management decisions
This case highlights two critical hurdles in employment tribunal claims: strict time limits and the need to show that an employer's actions were not just unfair but unlawful. The claimant, a deputy general manager with 12 years' service, felt sidelined when her employer failed to keep her informed of changes while she was on maternity leave and later offered her a different role. She resigned and brought multiple claims, including constructive dismissal and discrimination.
However, the tribunal found that most of her complaints were lodged too late. For example, the failure to invite her to a Christmas party in December 2021 was not raised until July 2022—well beyond the three-month window. The tribunal also noted that even if the claims had been in time, they would have failed because the employer's actions were not motivated by her maternity leave or sex. The offer of a new role was a genuine attempt to keep her employed after a restructure, not a demotion.
What the employer did right
Artionis (UK) Ltd had a clear policy for the Christmas party based on Covid-19 restrictions, which applied to all staff. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was not singled out. Similarly, the decision not to update her during maternity leave was not ideal but did not amount to discrimination. Crucially, the employer offered her a suitable alternative role when her original position changed, which the tribunal found was a reasonable response to a business restructure.
Why this matters for similar claims
Employees who feel they have been treated unfairly during or after maternity leave should act quickly to preserve their rights. The three-month time limit runs from each individual act of alleged discrimination or detriment, not from the end of the employment. This case also shows that not every change in role or exclusion from an event will be unlawful—employers can make reasonable business decisions as long as they are not based on a protected characteristic. For those considering a constructive dismissal claim, the bar is high: you must show that the employer's conduct was a fundamental breach of contract that left you no choice but to resign.
Similar cases
Duty manager with 39 years' service wins constructive dismissal after split shifts imposed without consultation
A duty manager who resigned after her employer imposed split shifts and reduced hours without consultation, and then failed to address her grievance for over a month, has been awarded £10,683.75 for constructive unfair dismissal.
Team manager awarded £18,900 after removal of duties and disciplinary action
A team manager with eight years' service was constructively dismissed after his employer removed all managerial duties for over 10 months and then disciplined him for swearing. The tribunal awarded £18,923.
Finance Manager loses redundancy and discrimination claims after returning from maternity leave
An Employment Tribunal has dismissed all claims of maternity discrimination, harassment, victimisation and unfair dismissal brought by a Finance Manager who was made redundant shortly after returning from maternity leave.
Shop worker's unfair dismissal claim fails after respondent's response struck out
A former shop worker's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after the tribunal struck out the employer's response for failing to comply with case management directions for over two years.