Tower crane operator with 13 years' service wins constructive dismissal claim after being removed from site without explanation
A tower crane operator who resigned after being removed from a site without explanation and ignored during sick leave has won his constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal awarded £16,724.72.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a tower crane operator from 24 July 2007 until his resignation on 5 August 2020.
- On 12 June 2020, the claimant was removed from a site without explanation after the principal contractor requested his removal.
- The claimant's questions about the reason for removal were not answered by the respondent.
- The claimant suffered severe stress and was signed off work from 12 June 2020.
- The respondent failed to investigate or communicate with the claimant during his absence.
- The claimant resigned on 5 August 2020, citing health and safety concerns and lack of support.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for the respondent as a tower crane operator.
-
Reported water in crane base
The claimant reported water in the base of a crane at Rectory Park site.
-
Second report of water in crane base
The claimant again reported water in the crane base at Oaklands site.
-
Reported anti-collision system switched off
The claimant reported that anti-collision systems on cranes at Willesden Junction were switched off.
-
Required to take breaks in crane cab
The claimant was told to stay in the crane cab all day without climbing down for breaks.
-
Placed on furlough
The claimant was placed on furlough during the first COVID-19 lockdown.
-
Returned to work at Stamford Hill
The claimant returned from furlough to work at Towers Court, Stamford Hill.
-
Removed from site without explanation
The claimant was told to leave Stamford Hill site by the respondent after the principal contractor requested his removal. His questions about the reason were not answered.
-
Attended hospital for stress
The claimant attended Whittington Hospital and was diagnosed with severe stress related to work.
-
Resigned
The claimant resigned, citing health and safety concerns and lack of support from the respondent.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed when he resigned after the respondent removed him from a site without explanation, failed to investigate his health and safety concerns, and ignored him during his stress-related sick leave.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of constructive unfair dismissal. The respondent failed to identify any potentially fair reason for the dismissal, so the dismissal was automatically unfair.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £7,263.00
- Compensatory award: £9,461.72
- Total: £16,724.72
Additionally, the claimant succeeded in a claim for unlawful deduction of wages of £400 for a temporary pay cut during the first COVID-19 lockdown that he had not agreed to.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are removed from a worksite without explanation and your employer refuses to investigate, this may amount to a fundamental breach of trust and confidence, entitling you to resign and claim constructive dismissal.
- Employers should not ignore employees who are signed off sick with stress; failing to communicate or investigate their concerns can be a repudiatory breach of contract.
- Long-serving employees with a clean record are entitled to expect a proper process; a sudden unexplained removal from site without any investigation is likely to be outside the range of reasonable responses.
- A temporary pay cut imposed without the employee's knowledge or agreement is an unlawful deduction from wages, even during a pandemic.
When silence becomes a breach of trust
This case shows how an employer's failure to communicate can amount to a fundamental breach of the employment relationship. The claimant, a tower crane operator with 13 years' unblemished service, was removed from a construction site on 12 June 2020 after the principal contractor asked for his removal. His line manager gave no reason, and the claimant's subsequent questions went unanswered. He was signed off work with severe stress the same day.
Over the next two months, the respondent did nothing. No investigation, no welfare call, no attempt to understand what had happened. The claimant resigned on 5 August 2020, citing health and safety concerns and a loss of confidence in the company's ability to support him.
What the employer could have done differently
The tribunal noted that the respondent had not identified any potentially fair reason for the dismissal. It argued 'some other substantial reason' but never specified what that reason was. A simple investigation into the site removal, a meeting to hear the claimant's side, and genuine engagement with his health concerns would likely have prevented this claim. Instead, the silence itself became the repudiatory breach.
Why this matters for similar claims
Constructive dismissal claims often turn on the 'last straw' – a final act that makes resignation inevitable. Here, the removal from site was the trigger, but the sustained failure to investigate or communicate over two months was the breach that justified resignation. For employees, this case reinforces that you do not need a single dramatic event; a pattern of neglect can be enough. For employers, it is a reminder that ignoring a long-serving employee's concerns during sickness absence is a high-risk strategy.
The tribunal also awarded £400 for an unlawful deduction of wages – a temporary pay cut imposed without the claimant's knowledge during the first lockdown. This illustrates that even small sums can be recovered when consent is absent.
Similar cases
Lay-off without pay upheld: 17-year employee loses constructive dismissal claim over unsigned contract
A CAD/CAM designer with 17 years' service lost his constructive dismissal claim after being laid off for four weeks without pay. The tribunal found he had accepted a 2018 contract with a lay-off clause by his conduct.
Customer service manager overlooked for hours due to disability: constructive dismissal succeeds
A Customer Service Manager with 6 years' service was constructively dismissed after being repeatedly overlooked for increased hours while a colleague was given a 30-hour contract. The tribunal found direct disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Shop assistant with 20 years' service wins constructive dismissal claim over unpaid National Minimum Wage
A shop assistant who worked for 20 years without pay, then for below the National Minimum Wage, has won her constructive dismissal claim. The tribunal found she was subjected to detriments for asserting her right to be paid.
Coach driver who resigned over fume fears wins constructive dismissal claim
A coach driver who repeatedly raised concerns about diesel fumes in his minibus and resigned after a poorly handled disciplinary meeting has won his claim for constructive unfair dismissal.