Prison officer's constructive dismissal claim over locker incident rejected
A prison officer who resigned after a locker break-in and a refused job endorsement failed to prove constructive dismissal or discrimination. The tribunal found no protected disclosure and no dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Prison Officer at HMP Whitemoor from 30 April 2018 to 28 January 2021.
- On 27 January 2020, the claimant reported that his work locker had been broken into.
- The claimant reported the incident to the police on 29 January 2020, which he claimed was a protected disclosure.
- The claimant's line manager, CM Clark, refused to endorse his application for an Analyst role on 11 February 2020.
- The claimant resigned on 31 December 2020, alleging constructive dismissal.
- The Tribunal found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure and was not constructively dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a Prison Officer at HMP Whitemoor.
-
Claimant reported feeling unwell
Claimant reported feeling unwell and took sick leave until 9 November 2019.
-
Occupational Health report
Occupational Health provided a report regarding the claimant's health.
-
Locker incident
Claimant discovered his work locker had been broken into and contents removed.
-
Police report
Claimant made an online report to Cambridgeshire Police about the locker incident.
-
Endorsement refused
CM Clark refused to endorse the claimant's application for the Analyst role.
-
Grievance submitted
Claimant submitted a grievance regarding CM Clark's refusal to endorse his application.
-
Grievance outcome
Claimant was advised that his grievance was not upheld.
-
Prevent Lead rejection
Claimant was not selected for interview for the Prevent Lead role.
-
Resignation
Claimant submitted his resignation, effective 28 January 2021.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the prison officer was constructively dismissed, whether he made a protected disclosure by reporting a locker break-in to the police, and whether he was discriminated against on grounds of race or religion.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the prison officer did not make a protected disclosure because his report to the police was not a qualifying disclosure under employment law. He was not constructively dismissed because the employer's actions did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract. All 13 allegations of race and religion discrimination were also rejected.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Reporting a crime to the police does not automatically count as a protected disclosure under whistleblowing law; the disclosure must relate to specific wrongdoing in the workplace.
- To succeed in a constructive dismissal claim, you must show that your employer committed a fundamental breach of contract that caused you to resign.
- Bringing multiple discrimination claims without strong evidence can weaken your case; tribunals assess each allegation individually.
- Representing yourself without legal advice can make it harder to meet the legal tests for complex claims like constructive dismissal.
- Employers should ensure that grievance processes are handled impartially, but minor procedural flaws do not necessarily amount to discrimination.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the high bar for constructive dismissal and whistleblowing claims. The prison officer resigned after a series of workplace disputes, including a locker break-in and a refused job endorsement. He argued that reporting the break-in to the police was a protected disclosure and that the employer's response forced him out. However, the tribunal found that the police report did not relate to a legal obligation or wrongdoing by the employer—it was simply a crime report. Without a qualifying disclosure, the whistleblowing claim collapsed.
What the employer could have done differently
While the tribunal rejected all claims, the employer's handling of the grievance process was not perfect. The officer's line manager was initially appointed to investigate a grievance against himself, which was later corrected. Although this did not amount to discrimination or a breach of contract, employers should avoid even the appearance of bias in grievance investigations. Clearer communication about why the endorsement was refused might also have reduced the sense of unfairness.
Why this result matters
This outcome reinforces that not every workplace dispute leads to a successful employment claim. Employees who resign and allege constructive dismissal must prove a fundamental breach of contract—not just poor management or disappointment. For whistleblowing, the disclosure must meet specific legal criteria. The case also shows that tribunals will scrutinise multiple discrimination allegations carefully, and without direct evidence of race or religion bias, such claims are likely to fail.
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.
Registered mental health nurse loses race discrimination claims against Cygnet
A registered mental health nurse who alleged race discrimination and harassment by Cygnet NW Limited has had all his claims dismissed by the Sheffield Employment Tribunal.
Claim dismissed after former employee fails to attend preliminary hearing
A former employee's claims of constructive dismissal and discrimination were struck out after she failed to attend a preliminary hearing and did not provide a witness statement as directed.
Security guard dismissed for sleeping on duty: tribunal rejects discrimination claims
A security guard who was dismissed after being found asleep during his shift at Bloomberg LLP has lost his claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably and the discrimination claims had no merit.