Constructive dismissal claim fails after employee accepted alternative role
A stores person who resigned after a security breach investigation lost his constructive unfair dismissal claim because he had accepted a new role before quitting.
2 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #security-breach
- #investigation-delay
- #prison-security
- #affirmation-of-contract
Key facts
- The claimant was suspended on 23 June 2022 pending investigation into a breach of local security strategy.
- The claimant was excluded from HMP Brinsford by the Head of Security on 8 July 2022.
- The respondent offered the claimant alternative roles at other prisons, which he initially accepted on 26 July 2022.
- The claimant resigned on 26 August 2022, citing inability to return to his original role.
- The tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract and that the claimant had affirmed the contract by accepting the new role.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started work as a Contractor Escort with Amey Services Ltd.
-
Incident at HMP Brinsford
The claimant brought recording equipment onto site without proper authorisation, leading to a security concern.
-
Investigation started
Line manager Keith Berry was informed of the breach and began gathering witness statements.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was suspended pending further investigation into the security breach.
-
Exclusion from site
Kate Wild, Head of Security, recommended the claimant be removed from HMP Brinsford.
-
Suspension lifted, alternative roles offered
The claimant's suspension was lifted and he was offered three alternative positions at other prisons.
-
Claimant off sick
The claimant became absent from work citing stress and anxiety.
-
Claimant accepted alternative role
The claimant accepted a stores position at Swinfen Hall prison.
-
Claimant resigned
The claimant tendered his resignation, giving 4 weeks' notice.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's resignation took effect.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employer's conduct—delays in investigating a security breach and refusing to let the employee return to his original role—amounted to a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, and whether the employee had affirmed the contract before resigning.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for constructive unfair dismissal.
The key reason was that the employee had affirmed his contract by accepting an alternative role at another prison after the alleged breach. The tribunal found no repudiatory breach by the employer; the investigation delays were not unreasonable given the security context, and the employer had offered suitable alternative roles.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Accepting an alternative role after a dispute can be seen as affirming the contract, which may prevent a later constructive dismissal claim.
- Employers can rely on security concerns from third parties (like prison authorities) as a valid reason to exclude an employee from a specific site.
- Delays in investigation are less likely to be a breach if they are proportionate to the seriousness of the issue and the employer keeps the employee informed.
- Employees considering resignation should seek advice before accepting any new role or terms, as this could waive their right to claim constructive dismissal.
When accepting a new role can cost you your constructive dismissal claim
This case shows how an employee's own actions can undermine a constructive dismissal claim. The claimant, a stores person with two years' service, was suspended after bringing recording equipment onto a prison site without authorisation. The employer, Amey Services Limited, investigated the security breach and, following a recommendation from the prison's Head of Security, excluded him from that site.
Rather than dismissing him, Amey offered alternative roles at other prisons. The claimant accepted a stores position at Swinfen Hall prison. However, he later resigned, claiming that the delays in the investigation and the refusal to let him return to his original role amounted to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence.
The tribunal disagreed. It found that the employer had acted reasonably in the circumstances: the security breach was serious, the investigation was ongoing, and the exclusion was driven by the prison authorities, not the employer. Crucially, by accepting the alternative role, the claimant had affirmed his contract. This meant he could not later claim that the employer's conduct forced him to resign.
What the employer did right
Amey Services Limited followed a structured process: they suspended the claimant, investigated promptly, and offered alternative work. They also kept the claimant informed and lifted the suspension once alternative roles were identified. The tribunal noted that the delays were not unreasonable given the need to liaise with the prison service.
For employees, this case is a reminder that constructive dismissal claims are not automatic when things go wrong at work. If you accept a change in role or terms, you may be seen as accepting the situation. The key is to act quickly and seek advice before making decisions that could be interpreted as affirmation.
Why this matters for similar claims
Constructive dismissal is a high bar. The employee must show that the employer's conduct was so serious it destroyed the trust and confidence essential to the employment relationship. Here, the employer's response to a genuine security issue was deemed reasonable. The case also highlights the importance of timing: once you affirm the contract, you lose the right to claim constructive dismissal based on earlier conduct.
Similar cases
Head of Maintenance loses constructive dismissal claim against Roehampton University
A tribunal has dismissed a head of maintenance's constructive unfair dismissal claim against Roehampton University, finding that the employer's handling of workplace incidents did not breach the implied term of trust and confidence.
HR officer with 24 years' service loses constructive dismissal claim after delay in resigning
A long-serving HR officer who resigned after a nine-month disciplinary investigation has lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal ruled she had affirmed her contract by waiting over seven months to resign.
Food service coach loses constructive dismissal claim after working 20 months after alleged incidents
A food service coach who resigned citing racist comments and harassment lost her constructive dismissal and discrimination claims after the tribunal found she had affirmed her contract by continuing to work for 20 months.
Programme Executive loses constructive dismissal claim after resigning for higher-paid role
A Programme Executive with 10 years' service at Rolls Royce Plc failed to prove constructive unfair dismissal after resigning to take a significantly higher-paid job elsewhere. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence.