Part-time worker's constructive dismissal claim fails: tribunal rejects less favourable treatment allegations
A former employee who resigned and claimed constructive dismissal over part-time worker rights and national minimum wage issues has had all her claims dismissed by an employment tribunal.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by the respondent and resigned, claiming constructive dismissal.
- The claimant alleged constructive dismissal for asserting rights under the Part-Time Worker Regulations and National Minimum Wage Act.
- The tribunal found that the claimant's claims were unsuccessful and dismissed them.
- Earlier claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages were struck out due to lack of service and failure to pay a deposit.
- The respondent's application for reconsideration was refused.
Timeline
-
Strike out warning for unfair dismissal claim
Tribunal gave claimant opportunity to show why unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out due to less than 2 years' service.
-
Unfair dismissal claim struck out
Employment Judge Gray struck out the unfair dismissal claim as claimant failed to respond.
-
Revocation of earlier judgment and deposit order
Employment Judge Roper revoked the earlier strike-out judgment and ordered claimant to pay a £250 deposit for the unlawful deduction claim.
-
Unlawful deduction claim struck out
Employment Judge Bax struck out the unlawful deduction claim because claimant failed to pay the deposit.
-
Final hearing for remaining claims
Tribunal heard claims of constructive dismissal and less favourable treatment for part-time workers.
-
Judgment dismissing all remaining claims
Employment Judge Salter and panel dismissed all claims as unsuccessful.
-
Reconsideration application refused
Employment Judge Salter refused respondent's application for reconsideration of the September 2023 judgment.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee was constructively dismissed (i.e., forced to resign due to her employer's conduct) and whether she was treated less favourably because she was a part-time worker, and if those dismissals were automatically unfair.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the former employee's claims. She had resigned and argued that she was constructively dismissed for asserting her rights under the Part-Time Worker Regulations and the National Minimum Wage Act, but the tribunal did not accept her case.
Key reasons:
- The tribunal found that the employee had not been constructively dismissed; the employer's conduct did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract.
- The claim of less favourable treatment as a part-time worker was also rejected, as the tribunal accepted the employer's evidence that the roles were different.
- Earlier claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages had already been struck out due to lack of service and failure to pay a deposit.
No compensation was awarded as all claims were unsuccessful.
Lessons & takeaways
- To succeed in a constructive dismissal claim, you must show that your employer's conduct was a fundamental breach of contract that left you with no choice but to resign.
- Part-time workers must provide evidence of less favourable treatment compared to a full-time comparator in a similar role.
- Failing to comply with tribunal orders, such as paying a deposit, can result in your claim being struck out.
- Employees with less than two years' service cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal claims, though some automatically unfair reasons may still apply.
A cautionary tale for part-time workers considering a constructive dismissal claim
This case shows the challenges employees face when alleging constructive dismissal and less favourable treatment as a part-time worker. The former employee resigned and claimed that she was forced to do so because her employer, Groeneveld UK Limited, had infringed her rights under the Part-Time Worker Regulations and the National Minimum Wage Act. However, the employment tribunal did not accept her version of events.
The tribunal heard evidence from both sides and concluded that the employer's conduct did not amount to a fundamental breach of contract, which is the legal test for constructive dismissal. It also found that the employee had not been treated less favourably than a comparable full-time worker, as the roles were different. This meant that all her claims were dismissed.
What the employer did right
Groeneveld UK Limited successfully defended the claims by providing clear evidence about the differences between the employee's role and the full-time comparator. The tribunal accepted that explanation, highlighting the importance of keeping accurate job descriptions and records of duties.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that constructive dismissal claims are difficult to prove. Employees must show that the employer's conduct was so serious that it fundamentally undermined the employment relationship. Simply resigning and alleging a breach is not enough. Additionally, part-time workers claiming less favourable treatment must identify a suitable full-time comparator and provide evidence of actual disadvantage.
The tribunal also noted that the employee's earlier claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages had been struck out due to procedural failures, including not paying a deposit. This underscores the importance of complying with tribunal orders and deadlines.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal claims survive strike-out attempt: lessons for employers on trust and confidence
An experienced HR professional's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination will proceed to a full hearing after the tribunal refused to strike them out, though deposit orders were made.
Warehouse operative's indirect discrimination claims over Covid-sceptic beliefs struck out
A warehouse operative who resigned after refusing to comply with face-covering and testing rules had his indirect discrimination and constructive dismissal claims struck out after failing to pay a deposit order.
Lorry driver with 18 days' service: unfair dismissal struck out but discrimination claims survive
A lorry driver who resigned after 18 days and later worked as an agency driver was unable to claim unfair dismissal due to short service, but his disability and race discrimination claims will proceed to a final hearing.
NHS consultant's constructive dismissal claim struck out after failing to pay deposit
A psychiatrist's claim for constructive unfair dismissal against an NHS trust was struck out after she failed to pay a £400 deposit ordered by the tribunal. The claim had previously survived a strike-out application.