Head of Finance loses constructive dismissal claim after refusing return to office
A tribunal has ruled that a YMCA's request for a senior manager to return to blended working did not breach her contract, dismissing her claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant began working from home in March 2020 due to Covid-19.
- Her statutory request to work permanently from home was refused in March 2021 and the appeal was dismissed.
- The claimant's contract specified her place of work as the office.
- In February 2023, the respondent asked the claimant to return to the office with a blended approach.
- The claimant resigned on 10 February 2023 before formal consultation took place.
- The tribunal found no breach of contract or implied term of trust and confidence.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a Finance Assistant.
-
Promotion to Head of Finance
Claimant was promoted to Head of Finance and Information Systems and joined the Senior Leadership Team.
-
Started working from home
Due to Covid-19, the claimant began working from home.
-
Statutory flexible working request
Claimant made a written request to work from home permanently.
-
Request refused
Respondent refused the request, citing business need for senior leaders to be on site.
-
Appeal lodged
Claimant appealed the refusal.
-
Appeal dismissed
Appeal was dismissed; respondent suggested a blended approach.
-
First discussion about return
After a Finance Committee meeting, CEO Ms Conway told claimant she needed to return to the office.
-
Second meeting
Claimant met Ms Conway off-site; claimant asked what if she refused, Ms Conway mentioned resignation option.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned by email after receiving a letter outlining reasons for return and inviting formal consultation.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's notice period ended.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's request for the claimant to return to working in the office, after two years of home working, breached the implied term of trust and confidence or any other contractual term, and whether this amounted to a constructive dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant's contract specified her place of work as the office, so the request to return was lawful.
- The respondent had engaged in discussions and was proposing a blended approach, not a full-time office return.
- The claimant resigned before the formal consultation process could take place, meaning there was no breach of contract.
- The tribunal found no evidence that the respondent had acted in a way that destroyed trust and confidence.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A request to return to the office, even after a long period of home working, is not automatically a breach of contract if the contract specifies the office as the place of work.
- Resigning before an employer has completed a consultation process can undermine a constructive dismissal claim, as there may be no final decision to breach the contract.
- Employers should ensure they follow a fair process and communicate clearly when asking employees to change their working arrangements, but a reasonable request is unlikely to amount to constructive dismissal.
- Employees who have had a flexible working request refused should consider whether the employer's approach is reasonable before resigning, as the bar for constructive dismissal is high.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the limits of a constructive dismissal claim when an employer asks an employee to return to the office after a period of home working. The claimant, a Head of Finance with 11 years' service, had worked from home since March 2020 due to the pandemic. When her employer, Grimsby Cleethorpes and Humber Region YMCA, asked her to return to a blended approach in February 2023, she resigned almost immediately, before formal consultation could take place.
The tribunal found that the employer's request was not a breach of contract. The claimant's contract specified her place of work as the office, and the employer had not imposed a rigid requirement to be on site full-time. Instead, it had proposed a blended approach and was in the process of consulting with her when she resigned.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have waited for the consultation process to conclude before deciding to resign. By leaving early, she gave the tribunal no opportunity to assess whether the employer's final decision would have been unreasonable. She also could have considered that her statutory flexible working request had already been refused in 2021, and the employer's later request was a reasonable attempt to find a middle ground.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that constructive dismissal claims require a fundamental breach of contract by the employer. A request to return to the office, even after a long period of home working, is unlikely to be such a breach if the contract allows it and the employer is willing to discuss arrangements. Employees who feel pressured by a return-to-office request should engage with the process and seek legal advice before resigning, as a premature resignation can be fatal to their claim.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claim over new Deputy Practice Manager role fails
A GP practice assistant manager with 14 years' service resigned after learning of a proposed new role, claiming constructive dismissal. The tribunal rejected her claim, finding no breach of trust and confidence.
Constructive dismissal claim fails: resignation after grievance not upheld
A Regulatory Officer with 10 years' service resigned claiming constructive dismissal after her grievance was not upheld. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence and dismissed the claim.
Material Flow Manager loses constructive dismissal claim over misleading emails to employee
A Material Flow Manager who resigned after receiving a first written warning for misleading an employee about a promotion and back pay has lost his constructive unfair dismissal claim.
Practice manager with 29 years' service loses constructive dismissal claim over email about future pay
A practice manager who resigned after receiving an email mentioning a potential future pay reduction has lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no repudiatory breach.