Support worker who resigned over health and safety fears loses constructive dismissal claim
A support worker who resigned after reporting a jammed door lock and a blocked fire exit has lost her claim for constructive unfair dismissal. The tribunal found no serious or imminent danger.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #constructive-dismissal
- #health-and-safety
- #circumstances-of-danger
- #resignation
- #support-worker
Key facts
- The claimant resigned by letter dated 10 September 2021, giving one month's notice.
- The claimant was not dismissed; she resigned to take up alternative employment.
- The tribunal found no circumstances of danger that were serious and imminent.
- The respondent addressed most of the claimant's health and safety concerns promptly.
- The claimant would have returned to work if not offered a new job.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work as a support worker at the project in Ruabon, Wrexham.
-
Office door lock jammed
First incident where the office door lock jammed, trapping occupants briefly.
-
Wardrobe blocking fire exit reported
Claimant reported a wardrobe potentially blocking a fire exit; it was moved the next working day.
-
Office door lock jammed again
Second lock incident; the lock was replaced promptly.
-
Last day at work
Claimant worked her last day before going on sick leave.
-
Sick leave began
Claimant certified unfit for work due to lumbago and sciatica.
-
Unconditional job offer received
Claimant received an unconditional job offer from a new employer.
-
Resignation letter sent
Claimant resigned with one month's notice, effective 8 October 2021.
-
Employment ended
Effective date of termination.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant resigned in circumstances of danger that she reasonably believed to be serious and imminent, which would have made her dismissal automatically unfair under section 100(1)(d) or (e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the claimant was not constructively dismissed. She resigned voluntarily to take up alternative employment, not because of a repudiatory breach by the employer.
The key reasons were:
- The health and safety issues (a jammed door lock and a wardrobe near a fire exit) were minor and promptly resolved.
- There were no circumstances of danger that were serious and imminent.
- The claimant would have returned to work if not offered a new job.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Constructive dismissal requires a fundamental breach of contract by the employer; minor issues that are promptly addressed will not suffice.
- To rely on health and safety protections, the danger must be serious and imminent, not just a minor inconvenience.
- Resigning to take up a new job weakens any claim that you were forced to leave due to the employer's conduct.
- Keep a record of all health and safety concerns raised and the employer's response — prompt action by the employer can defeat a constructive dismissal claim.
When a resignation is not a dismissal
This case illustrates the high bar for constructive dismissal claims based on health and safety concerns. The claimant, a support worker with just 10 months' service, resigned after reporting two incidents: a jammed office door lock and a wardrobe that may have blocked a fire exit. She argued that these created circumstances of danger that forced her to leave.
However, the tribunal found that the employer acted promptly on both issues. The lock was replaced the day after the second incident, and the wardrobe was moved the next working day after being reported. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had already received an unconditional job offer before she resigned, and she would have returned to work if not for that offer.
What the employer did right
Stori Wales (formerly Hafan Cymru) responded quickly to the health and safety concerns, which was key to defeating the claim. The tribunal found no serious or imminent danger — the lock jammed but occupants were never trapped for long, and the wardrobe was not actually blocking the exit. The employer's prompt action meant there was no fundamental breach of contract that would justify resignation.
Why this matters for similar claims
Employees considering resigning over health and safety issues should be aware that the danger must be objectively serious and imminent. Minor issues that are quickly resolved are unlikely to support a constructive dismissal claim. Additionally, resigning after securing another job can undermine the argument that you were forced to leave. This case is a reminder that constructive dismissal is about the employer's conduct, not just the employee's perception of risk.
Similar cases
Before and after school club leader loses Covid-19 safety dismissal claim
A before and after school club leader who refused to attend work during the pandemic claiming serious and imminent danger has lost her unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found her belief was not reasonable given the school's risk assessments.
Support Manager's constructive dismissal claim over role change fails
A Support Manager who resigned after her role was changed and workload reduced lost her constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found no breach of trust and confidence.
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.
Live-in carer wins whistleblowing detriment claim but loses constructive dismissal case
A live-in carer with 32 years' experience won a whistleblowing detriment claim after raising safety concerns, but her constructive dismissal claim failed. She was awarded £1,775.