Security guard's constructive dismissal claim over reduced hours fails
A security guard who resigned after his hours were cut and his grievance partially upheld lost his constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no fundamental breach of contract.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant resigned on 6 September 2021.
- The claimant was employed as a security guard with a guaranteed minimum of 8 hours per week.
- The claimant was moved from Sainsbury's to a Co-op store without written notification.
- The claimant's hours were reduced to 32 per week after two colleagues returned from sick leave.
- The claimant's grievance about hours and holiday policy was dismissed at first instance and partially upheld on appeal.
- The tribunal found no breach of contract or implied term of trust and confidence.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant started work for Mitie Ltd as a security guard.
-
Requested move
Claimant asked manager Mrs Fish for a move due to issues at Sainsbury's High Street.
-
Moved to Co-op
Claimant agreed to move to Co-op, Broad Lane, without written notification.
-
Complaint about hours
Claimant wrote to Nathan McKinnon complaining about reduced hours and disparity with colleagues.
-
Formal grievance raised
Claimant raised a formal grievance about hours, holiday policy, and unequal treatment.
-
Grievance hearing
Mr McCafferty heard the grievance and later dismissed it.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr John Taylor heard the appeal and partially upheld the grievance on holiday policy.
-
Appeal decision
Mr Taylor rejected the grievance on hours but partially upheld holiday policy.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned citing breakdown of trust and confidence.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's actions—moving the claimant to a different store, reducing his hours, and handling his grievance—amounted to a fundamental breach of contract entitling him to resign and claim constructive dismissal.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claims of constructive unfair dismissal and breach of contract.
Key reasons:
- The claimant's contract allowed his place of work to be changed 'as directed by management.'
- The reduction in hours was temporary due to colleagues returning from sick leave, not a permanent breach.
- The grievance procedure was properly followed; the appeal partially upheld the claimant's complaint about holiday policy.
- No fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence was established.
No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Check your contract for mobility clauses—employers can often change your location if it says 'or as directed by management.'
- Temporary reductions in hours due to operational needs may not be a breach if your contract guarantees minimum hours overall.
- A grievance that is partially upheld on appeal can show the employer took your concerns seriously, reducing the chance of a constructive dismissal claim.
- If you resign, you must do so promptly after the alleged breach; continuing to work for too long can be seen as accepting the situation.
When a change in hours isn't a breach of contract
This case shows that not every reduction in hours amounts to a fundamental breach of contract, especially if your contract allows flexibility and the change is temporary. The security guard had a guaranteed minimum of 8 hours per week, but was working around 45 hours before two colleagues returned from sick leave, cutting his hours to 32. The tribunal accepted that this was an operational decision, not a permanent reduction, and therefore not a breach.
The importance of the grievance process
The claimant raised a formal grievance about his hours and holiday policy. Although his grievance was initially dismissed, an appeal partially upheld his complaint about holiday policy. The tribunal noted that the employer followed a proper procedure, which helped show they had not destroyed trust and confidence. If you're considering a constructive dismissal claim, the way your employer handles your grievance can be crucial—a fair process can defeat the claim.
What the employer did right
Mitie Ltd had a clear contract with a mobility clause, which allowed them to move the claimant to a different store. They also responded to his complaints, even if the outcome wasn't what he wanted. The tribunal found that the employer's actions were within the range of reasonable responses, and there was no fundamental breach. For employees, this highlights the need to carefully review your contract and consider whether the change is truly a breach or just an exercise of management discretion.
Similar cases
Out-of-office email not a 'final straw' for constructive dismissal claim
A BSL communicator with 12 years' service lost her constructive dismissal claim after the tribunal found that an out-of-office reply, which delayed her grievance appeal outcome, was not a breach of trust and confidence.
Constructive dismissal claim fails after grievance process was followed
An accounts assistant who resigned after an unsatisfactory grievance outcome lost her constructive dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer's conduct did not destroy trust and confidence.
Constructive dismissal claim fails after informal complaints not pursued as grievances
An Operational Support Grade at HMP Garth who resigned after alleging bullying and poor complaint handling lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably and the complaints were not formal grievances.
Recruitment coordinator's constructive dismissal claim over informal warning and bonus rejected
The tribunal dismissed claims of constructive unfair dismissal and breach of contract for non-payment of a discretionary bonus, finding no repudiatory breach of trust and confidence.