Project Manager who claimed offshore allowance while working onshore loses constructive dismissal case
A project manager who resigned after his employer changed working practices to recover overpaid offshore allowance has lost his constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal also ordered him to repay £10,056.85.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #offshore-allowance
- #overpayment
- #working-time-regulations
- #flat-days
- #weather-days
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Project Manager from 1 April 2019 until his resignation on 21 February 2022.
- The claimant claimed Offshore Allowance of £10 per hour for 1,957 hours during the 2021 campaign, receiving £19,570.
- The respondent discovered the claimant was claiming Offshore Allowance despite rarely working offshore.
- The respondent issued a mandate on 11 February 2022 changing working practices, including restrictions on overtime and Offshore Allowance.
- The claimant resigned on 21 February 2022, alleging constructive dismissal.
- The tribunal found no oral agreement entitling the claimant to Offshore Allowance and that the respondent had reasonable cause for its actions.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as Senior Construction Manager, later promoted to Project Manager.
-
2021 campaign began
The offshore project campaign ran from March to October 2021.
-
Senior management review
Respondent's senior management began reviewing working hours and payments for the 2021 campaign.
-
First meeting
Meeting between claimant, Mr McCabe, Mr Clouston and Mr Dearing to discuss hours and allowances.
-
Mandate issued
Respondent issued a mandate with 11 points to change working practices.
-
Second meeting
Meeting where respondent conceded travel time could be in work hours.
-
Claimant resigned
Claimant gave four weeks' notice of resignation.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's last day of employment.
-
Final pay deduction
Respondent deducted £9,513.15 from final wages to recover overpaid Offshore Allowance.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's actions in changing working practices and deducting overpaid offshore allowance from final wages amounted to a fundamental breach of contract entitling the claimant to resign and claim constructive dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims and upheld the respondent's counterclaim.
- The claimant's claim for constructive unfair dismissal failed because the employer's actions were reasonable and not a fundamental breach of contract.
- The claim for unlawful deduction from wages failed because the deduction was lawful to recover an overpayment.
- The claim for unpaid holiday pay also failed.
- The respondent's counterclaim for repayment of the overpaid offshore allowance succeeded, and the claimant was ordered to pay £10,056.85.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you claim an allowance you are not entitled to, your employer can recover it from your final wages, even if you have already resigned.
- Resigning and claiming constructive dismissal is risky if your employer has reasonable grounds for changing your working conditions.
- Keep clear records of any agreements about pay and allowances to avoid disputes later.
- An employer's mandate to change working practices is not necessarily a breach of contract if it is reasonable and justified.
When claiming an allowance you don't qualify for can backfire
A Project Manager with three years' service resigned after his employer, Equans Fabricom UK Limited, issued a mandate changing working practices and restricting offshore allowance claims. The claimant had claimed £19,570 in offshore allowance for the 2021 campaign, despite rarely working offshore. When the employer discovered this, it reviewed his hours and introduced new rules to prevent future overpayments.
The claimant argued that the changes amounted to a fundamental breach of contract, entitling him to resign and claim constructive dismissal. He also claimed that the employer unlawfully deducted £9,513.15 from his final wages to recover part of the overpayment.
What the tribunal decided
The Teesside Employment Tribunal rejected all of the claimant's arguments. It found that there was no oral agreement entitling him to offshore allowance for onshore work. The employer had reasonable cause to change working practices and recover the overpayment. The deduction from final wages was lawful because it was to recover an overpayment, and the employer was entitled to claim back the balance of £10,056.85.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's claim for unpaid holiday pay, as he had already been paid for all accrued holiday.
What this means for similar claims
This case shows that employers can recover overpaid wages, even after an employee has resigned, as long as the overpayment was made by mistake. It also highlights that constructive dismissal claims are difficult to win if the employer's actions are reasonable and justified. Employees who claim allowances they are not entitled to risk losing their jobs and having to repay the money.
Similar cases
Registered Nurse lost constructive dismissal claim over protected disclosure and discrimination
A tribunal dismissed all claims by a dementia ward nurse who resigned after suspension, finding no link between his protected disclosure and the employer's actions.
Drone pilot who resigned after £51 overtime deduction loses constructive dismissal claim
A drone pilot who resigned after his employer deducted £51.58 for unauthorised overtime has lost his constructive dismissal claim. The tribunal found the deduction was lawful as recovery of an overpayment.
Care worker's constructive dismissal claim dismissed as too late
A care worker who resigned in September 2021 but did not bring her claim until May 2022 had her unfair dismissal and discrimination claims thrown out by the Birmingham tribunal as out of time.
Sales advisor's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing fails: tribunal finds no breach
A sales advisor who resigned after alleging fraud and harassment lost her constructive dismissal and whistleblowing claims. The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract, and most detriment claims were out of time.